PDA

View Full Version : Merged: It's Too Late Mr. Joyce.


Sunfish
15th Nov 2010, 17:11
The brand is already suffering.

"Worlds safest airline?" Says who?

Of course these incidents are "unrelated" in a technical sense. They are related in a statistical sense since it would appear that they are all maintenance related in respect of overall quality and supervision of maintenance.

This is exactly the reason I built a simple system to track "unrelated incidents" about Forty years ago for Ansett. The Poisson Distribution, hypothesis testing, Three sigma limits and confidence limits are your friend.

To be fair to Qantas, assuming those tried and tested statistical tools are being applied by ATA chapter to each aircraft type to the monthly reported defect totals, then QF should be able to prove to it's own satisfaction, and the regulator and ATSB, that these indeed are "Isolated incidents" in the statistical meaning of the term. If they cannot, or don't track reliability that way, then God help them.

If QF really is in a situation where Ten years cutting and scrimping has left them a bit light on, then it will take at least that long to get out, assuming that the Board agreed, which I doubt.

"Smoke in the cockpit" due to a "minor electrical problem"?

Take it from me, it isn't "minor" when you smell it for the first time after take off and you have no idea what's causing it. It's happened to me. Furthermore, having assisted in trying to put out a major electrical fire in a fiberglass boat, and caught a whiff of smoke from burning resin, Good luck to the B787 crew who had a similar experience.

Erosion of trust in Qantas 'unavoidable'

By Meredith Griffiths

One analyst says the public is becoming sceptical of the airline's assurances on safety.

Qantas is again playing down safety concerns with its aircraft after another aborted flight today, but one analyst says the public is becoming sceptical of the airline's assurances.

A Qantas 747 bound for Argentina was forced to turn back to Sydney this morning after smoke was detected in the cockpit an hour into the flight.

The airline says a minor electrical problem caused the turnaround and all passengers disembarked safely.

The 199 passengers on QF17 were put onto a different plane that left early this evening.

Qantas says the latest drama is unrelated to three other incidents on its planes in the past fortnight, but marketing analyst Richard Sauerman says the brand is beginning to suffer.

"We should probably be thankful that in fact they are doing this, being over cautious and not letting things fly, but I don't know if the public buys that," he said.

"There's an erosion of trust. There's something that's going on in the back of people's minds and they'll just think twice about Qantas next time they're going to book an air ticket.

"I guarantee you most people will do that."

He says people are hearing that Qantas is compromising its service.

"Certainly the union people are saying that. They've sent certain services and maintenance, engineering functions offshore and when they did that way back, people said 'oh, that's going to somehow undermine the safety' and low and behold, that seems to be what's happening," he said.

"Now whether that is exactly how it plays out, I don't know. The point is that perceptions shape the reality, whatever the reality actually is, and that's not a good conversation happening out there for Qantas at all."

Qantas spokeswoman Olivia Wirth says the incident is unrelated to problems experienced by one of its A380s over Indonesia or the 747 that saw its engine sparking on a flight from Singapore 10 days ago.

She says these events are getting greater attention than they may have in the past.

"We are very conservative when it comes to safety. We do have certain procedures in place and we make sure that our pilots do stick by them," she said.

"I think there's recognition that Qantas does take safety very seriously.

"On the incidents recently, the feedback from passengers has been very positive and Qantas always takes a conservative approach.

"Obviously it's unfortunate that we have had a number of incidents recently.

"They're unrelated and we'll make sure we keep safety our priority for this organisation."

Hard questions

Aviation blogger Ben Sandilands says people are right to ask hard questions about Qantas's maintenance but he says they should be fair.

"In the case of much newer aircraft, then probably the facilities that they have used overseas - and sometimes can't avoid using overseas - are indeed very good," he said.

"But this is more an issue of the age of the Qantas aircraft and they do have some very old aircraft in service at the moment.

"Probably the very best thing they can do is to keep that maintenance in Australia and not in a facility which really is used to dealing with much newer aircraft."

Mr Sandilands says there are many turnbacks and faults which are commonplace in aviation and do not reflect badly on Qantas.


Erosion of trust in Qantas 'unavoidable' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/15/3067045.htm?section=justin)

luchtpost
15th Nov 2010, 18:46
Just wait and we will see. Let' hope for the best for Qantas!

hotnhigh
15th Nov 2010, 21:07
Sadly the sequence of events in the past couple of weeks has highlighted what many have been saying for a long time.
The treatment and neglect of the 'premium airline' is coming back to bite the board and ceo at a time the airline needs people at the top who truly believe in Qantas. Unfortunately this is all missing.
Alan Joyce should be at the forefront explaining to shareholders, and more importantly, the australian public, what he and the board will do to recover a situation that is totally unacceptable.
If this is what a great two brand strategy delivers, well... you can keep the stategy thanks. The Australian travelling public don't give a rats about Jetstar and what it represents but they are deeply concerned (finally) at what years of neglect, inept management and deciscions based on corporate greed have produced.
Unfortunately the sequence of events over the last few weeks has also highlighted that the senior management have no solution to the train wreck that they have created. They now have no answers. The corporate spin doctors of Epstein and Wirth have nothing but spin in all of their answers. Wirths' responses to some of the questions yesterday were appalling. A clear indication of the lack of knowledge as to the berevity of the situation of what smoke in the cockpit could actually really mean. So as a response to this, she feeds the waiting media the names of operating crew, in the hope they are led away from the scent of a greater problem.
I'm sure there are many 'crisis meetings' taking place but sadly no one from the board down will take ownership of the problem, acknowledge there is a major problem and implement steps to guide qantas to where all concerned staff, passengers and public think qantas should be.
Questions about the real impact of offshoring of maintenance function, the impact of offshoring of pilot positions, cabin crew postitons and the true value and impact to the "group".
In the interim I'm glad this week, Bruce Buchanan continues to espouse the virtues of cheap foreign labour. He and his cohorts within senior qantas group management continually demonstate and epitomise all that is wrong with Qantas as a group.

QFinsider
15th Nov 2010, 21:28
An excellent read for those wanting to understand where this ultimately leads is;

The Normalisation of Deviance-The Challenger Launch Decision

The aggressive style of management, driven by PERSONAL incentives pares away at the layers of safety built from years of operational experience. The prominence of accountants, encroaching into operational areas where their discipline has no experience eventually triggers the sequence of events that prove catastropic.

The engineers have stated it publicly, us pilots are also of the same opinion. It will take a long time to undo if it can be undone at all. In the interim we all hope (some 35,000 employees) our passengers and probably even shareholders that through some twist of fate, despite all the cutting and focus on short term incentives we avoid the fate that such behaviour delivered to the Challenger and NASA.

Monorail
15th Nov 2010, 22:36
A clear indication of the lack of knowledge as to the berevity of the situation of what smoke in the cockpit could actually really mean

I just couldn't believe it when Wirth(less) said that is was simply a faulty part on a selector panel. That's all. What's all the fuss about?



You reap what you sow.

Dixon sowed.

Now its harvest time.

ReverseFlight
16th Nov 2010, 01:01
Qantas has never had a hull loss.

Hope it stays that way. She's hanging in there by the skin of her teeth ... talk about public relations disasters ... what a bl**dy nightmare. :eek:

rmcdonal
16th Nov 2010, 01:28
ReverseFlight
Qantas has never had a hull loss. You don't believe that do you?
List of Qantas fatal accidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qantas_fatal_accidents)
G-AUED
G-AUHI
VH-UHE
VH-USG
G-AEUH
VH-USE
VH-ADU
42-68348
VH-ABB
G-AGLX
VH-EBQ

Bleve
16th Nov 2010, 01:44
Qantas has never had a hull loss.

What the QF spin doctors actually say is:

Qantas has never had a 'jet-powered' hull loss. I believe that is technically correct, although the intent is to leave the listerner with the impression that they haven't had a hull loss at all. ReverseFlight has demonstrated that the spin does work.

Sunfish
16th Nov 2010, 02:23
How Does Qantas Get Out Of It's Troubles? What is the solution to its current problems? Kidnap Fyffe from Air New Zealand? Kidnap their Board as well?

Mr Mott
16th Nov 2010, 02:43
As an ex long serving QF employee, I am dismayed at the level of Qantas bashing I see. if it is not the media , it's some of the miss guided unionists (in support of an EBA I'm sure) and now its these posts, and they are many and varied. All this rhetoric will only under mine further a company that employees Australian's. If any of you care about Australian workers then give them a chance to turn things around, they are not perfect but then who is!

hotnhigh
16th Nov 2010, 02:49
1. Re establishment of all engineering functions back in Australia. It's forms the core of the business of running an airline.
1b. Publically acknowledge there is an unacceptable trend occuring.
2. Acknowledge that some decisions taken by the board over the last 10 years have contributed to a detrimental effect on Qantas mainline.
3. Acknowledge to staff that mistakes have been made.
4. Acknowledge to staff that they are aware everyone wants a future. When it comes to negotiating, acknowledge that they are aware staff are willing to negotiate in good faith.
5. Organise a plan and recognise that a solution lies within the organisation, ie. it's front line staff, who have a desperate desire for Qantas to be the best.
6. Acknowledge this will come at a cost.
7. Abolish KPI linked bonuses. Every staff member is paid a salary and that is it!
8. Abolish all consultant positions. Any manager that needs to have a consultant work for them doesn't deserve the position.
9. Review board member aviation experience, and require pilot/engineer representatives presence at every board meeting.
10. Establishment of recovery plan that places the qantas product first and foremost. Identify to the travelling public that Qantas understands it's faults and is implementing the steps in the recovery.
11. All new aircraft arrivals targeted to reduce the dilapadated Qantas fleet.

ampclamp
16th Nov 2010, 02:50
mr mott I dont know how long since you were there but it is not a patch on what it was.Rose coloured glasses perhaps?
People are genuinely concerned mate, over and out.

Mr Mott
16th Nov 2010, 02:54
Ampclamp, I take your point, it is not what it used to be but what is. My point is the continued knocking will not make it better, it just puts Ozzy jobs at risk.

Monorail
16th Nov 2010, 03:04
Mr Mott, you surely must have left before Dixon got his hands on the company. The management of Qantas do not deserve "a break". They deserve intense media (balanced) and public scrutiny to ensure they rebuild the long standing reputation for safety by engaging the workforce, leading by example, and focussing on the core business of flying aeroplanes full of passengers from A to B in safety and comfort.

As for supporting an "Aus icon", are you talking about the airline that pays peanuts to foreign pilots and cabin crew who wear the uniform and operate the red tail aeroplanes?

Short_Circuit
16th Nov 2010, 04:49
give them a chance to turn things around, they are not perfect but then who is!
So when is this turn around going to start? We are all praying the upper uechelon wake up and start. :sad:

AWB_Clerk
16th Nov 2010, 07:14
If any of you care about Australian workers then give them a chance to turn things around, they are not perfect but then who is!

I think you would find that the real staff and workers would turn it around if given the opportunity and input to what goes on.

The bashing of Qantas could be seen as that, however I see it more as people frustrated by the lack of interest by management to take onboard any worthwhile constructive criticism from its employees, and the bashing you see here is perhaps the only way to get it out there.

An example:
It annoys me when I see good workers being held back by from training due to "costs", or to try to work with equipment or spares not being available, but management deem it cost effective to paint the internal structure of hangars or offices when it is not needed ( have a look at one particular hangar at the moment and you would know what I am refering to). And why does this painting go on? It's so that management can point to something physical and say that they have done "something". It's an easy thing to do and shows "visual progress".

It would be a lot harder for management to point at AME Joe Blogs and say to the bean counters that we spent some dosh on training him to do xyz and as a result he has become more productive, efficient and useful to the company because in the end he still just looks like AME Joe Blogs.

Besides, what's the point in training Joe Blogs when much of the skill sets we would give him by training him are not needed as the work is outsourced or servicing contracts cancelled?

But the hangar looks bloody fantastic and everyone that sees it from the terminal windows on the other side of the slot will surely be impressed with the "image" presented to them by management only interested in looking good.

It's all window-dressing and image, it is nothing of real substance. And it is real obvious.

Until management start to see the potential in what they still have in the staff, and realise that good staff with good training will give them a better image than all the tins of paint on the planet, the bashing will continue. And I am all for it.

AWBC

Sunfish
16th Nov 2010, 07:30
Mott:

Ampclamp, I take your point, it is not what it used to be but what is. My point is the continued knocking will not make it better, it just puts Ozzy jobs at risk.

I think the point is that the Board and senior management, by their actions, appear to care little for "Ozzy jobs" except their own.

To put it another way, they are keen to sacrifice "Ozzy jobs" to protect "Ozzy jobs". Ultimately they will sacrifice the engineers "Ozzy jobs", to protect the pilots ""Ozzy jobs", then sacrifice the pilots "Ozzy jobs" to protect the check in staffs "Ozzy jobs", ad infinitum, if you get my meaning.

I could make racial comments here, but I assume QF's legal eagles are trawling for any opportunity to start a lawsuit and make an example, and I have no wish to be it.

teresa green
16th Nov 2010, 10:11
Hotnhigh, that is one of the best posts I have read for a long time. And so true. :D It is so hard for a ol fella like myself, who spent their whole working life in the airlines, to see such a decline especially in such a great airline like QF. I am a member of a retired airline pilot group, and we just shake our heads, and wonder what happened to standards and safety that we took so seriously, along with the engineers with whom we worked. I can only hope before there is a hull loss, that standards and safety become paramount, that QF engineering goes back to the great and proud section it once was, ( as Arthur Baird set the standards) and we can forget the freckin shareholders, because if there is a hull loss, they will leave in droves. I never worried about my safety in all 49 years of flying, so why am I starting to worry about my kids (3 airline pilots) all of a sudden? I should not be.

Angle of Attack
16th Nov 2010, 10:45
You dont have to worry Teresa QF with their pissweak fleet will get a few new aircraft next year, meanwhile Jetstar will get all the new ones! Meanwhile 737-400's will operate which are around 25 years old! let alone the rest of the fleet! To give credit Joyce has inherited an unmitagted disaster which Dixon sowed. Lets see how he goes...

In other words Its over!

20's something fools have taken over the decisions in QF, pilots maybe idiots but not as idiotical as these managers, bring it on!

Rose_Thorns
16th Nov 2010, 14:38
Yes I know I'm supposed to be on night shift. BUT, one quote today really got me going. (Actually 2).

T.G. your fault. Quote ;- "and wonder what happened to standards and safety that we took so seriously, along with the engineers with whom we worked". (My bold).

Today a CASA Manager (Acting) wasted about $6000 during the hour (1 of 7) testimony he spent trying to convince a hearing that "I consider that it is a serious safety deficiency for pilots to talk to engineers, this communication should only be conducted through Operations, via written reports".

This is from an ex forces LAME, (before lobotomy).
What chance have we got with management when this sort of attitude prevails within (dare I say it) the corridors of power.

Tin Hat please Joyce and bring out the super fund, time is wasting, fish are biting and etc. etc. !!.

Selah.

C441
16th Nov 2010, 23:25
Today a CASA Manager (Acting) wasted about $6000 during the hour (1 of 7) testimony he spent trying to convince a hearing that "I consider that it is a serious safety deficiency for pilots to talk to engineers, this communication should only be conducted through Operations, via written reports".

Surely he has been misquoted.

Rarely could a written communication convey the detail and accuracy of a 1 minute explanation, person-to-person. (To say nothing of the questions the engineer may have for me to establish some more detail.)

gobbledock
17th Nov 2010, 07:45
Today a CASA Manager (Acting) wasted about $6000 during the hour (1 of 7) testimony he spent trying to convince a hearing that "I consider that it is a serious safety deficiency for pilots to talk to engineers, this communication should only be conducted through Operations, via written reports".

Yep, that is pure CASA. Wasting money and paranoid to the extent that if you take a piss it has to be put in writing with a minute attached to it. Too many bureaucrat's fiddling with themselves over legal terms and fancy wank words and out of touch with reality.

Go The Skull !

Arnold E
17th Nov 2010, 08:18
"I consider that it is a serious safety deficiency for pilots to talk to engineers, this communication should only be conducted through Operations, via written reports"
Any CASA people here? Is this actually true? Is this truly what was said? If it was, is that what was meant?:confused:

teresa green
17th Nov 2010, 08:45
What the fu$%? Pilots and engineers don't engage in conversation? If you have a freckin problem the first person you speak to on getting on the arm is the LAME on duty. Who else would you as ask, your mother in law? Spare me. It has always been a partnership, certainly in TAA, they fixed em, we flew em, one could not operate without the other. A good relationship, a few good jokes, always some sledging re footy etc, a important part of a days flying. Things are worse than I thought.

Oh Me Oh My
17th Nov 2010, 11:10
Flabbergasted, flumoxed, dazed, astounded, disheartened :{

Pilots shouldn't talk to engineers it compromises safety !!!!! :ugh:

What complete and utter rubbish by an obvious complete and utter idiot :8
If this is the type of individual that is within the halls of our regulator we are doomed that is one of the most moronic statements I have ever heard in my life, god help us all

LeadSled
17th Nov 2010, 13:22
Surely he has been misquoted.

Absolutely not, and it will all be available in the court transcripts, that was a very accurate quote from a Campaign Against Aviation Safety senior manager in a public hearing.

Tootle pip!!

Sunfish
17th Nov 2010, 13:34
CASA:

"I consider that it is a serious safety deficiency for pilots to talk to engineers, this communication should only be conducted through Operations, via written reports"

If this does represent CASA's official position, I'm shocked. It is however consistent. Written communication is subject to audit by CASA isn't it? Errors can be disclosed in writings and punished can't they? What next? Don't talk to the refueller, send him your fuel plan?


I almost always start a flight if possible by a walk through the hangar to see what is going on. If there is anything in an MR I'm curious about, I ask the engineers. If anything seems dodgy, it's also back to the hangar for a chat.

All I ever get when I query "ops" is "What? It always does that", the ginger beers are always much more forthcoming, to the point of educating me, or a slight adjustment of something or parts ordered for replacement.

Spanner Turner
17th Nov 2010, 14:28
The 2 seperate quotes below are from the "transit/check" procedure from two seperate 4 engined aircraft operated by a fairly large local airline - you'll see that it is an actual requirement (that is certified by a LAME) to have a "chat" with the tech and/or the cabin crew when required.

No doubt that this will soon be amended in light of the insights of our latest CASA "safety expert". In fact, due to the actions recently taken against some LAME's in this country for raising a cockpit door safety issue when all they should've been doing was a "general visual", I've no doubt that there will be a lot of stand-downs when management see/hear pilots talking to engineers!

From maint requirements of a large 4 engined european built aircraft:


1) D. Consult Flight Crew to discuss aircraft log entries (if required) and liaise with the Customer Service Manager (CSM) and/or Cabin Crew for a hand-over of any issues and/or defects experienced on the previous flight leg.

From maint requirements of a large 4 engined american built aircraft:


2) B. (Maintenance Supervisor or Nominated LAME).(1) Debrief technical crew and discuss Aircraft Technical Log entries if required. (2) Review all EICAS alert, status and auto event (snapshot) messages.
Check against Aircraft Technical Log and enter any outstanding items.

Sorry for long post but thought I'd also post this article that was forwarded to me - it's written by a professor from The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.(it's about a month or two old) Does it sound vaguely familiar to anyone ? Thought you'd love this Sunfish !

Noel Turnbull, adjunct professor of media and communications at RMIT University, writes

PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS SPINNING THE MEDIA

One of the PR industryís most problematic activities is dreaming up justifications for toxic workplace practices imposed by psychopathic managers.

This week three unconnected incidents reminded me of the problem. First, the PRIA sent me an email promoting an internal communications seminar in which the two words most likely to reduce productivity -- "change management" -- were used; then the latest issue of the Australian Institute of Company Directors journal, The Director, spruiked the need for government to take on board business nous to improve its performance; and, finally a report by a Melbourne University academic estimated that the annual cost of work stress was about $730 million through the impact on individuals of depression.

It was no doubt a PR person who dreamt up the phrase "change management" as a euphemism for destructively turning workplaces upside down, sacking people and generally changing things without making any positive difference at all to an organisationís outcomes or outputs. In my last book (How PR Works: but often doesnít ) I included a plain personís guide to change management, which said: "Over the past two decades a generation of change managers has set out to transform organisations -- from universities and companies to charities and government departments."

The guide said "change managers":
1. Announce soon after arrival, and before any analysis that might cloud judgments, that the organisation must face up to the new competitive environment and must change to survive.
2. Sack significant numbers of incumbent managers and replace them with friends and colleagues from previous jobs.
3. Increase the number of middle managers and management levels giving new managers titles such as organisational capability development manager.
4. Ensure none of the new managers have definable line management accountabilities or job descriptions written in English.
5. Objectify the people the organisation is set up to serve. E.g. citizens become customers of government departments while students and courses at universities become clients and services.
6. Announce a major reorganisation to affect change and confront the challenges of the competitive environment.
7. Identify another agency or group with which to merge, form strategic alliances or generally hold meetings with.
8. Retrench as many operational staff as possible, singling out in particular anyone with detailed knowledge of how systems actually work.
9. Introduce a culture based on continuous meetings and managerial Newspeak while insulating all managers from any operational realities.
10. Identify any centres of excellence or international best practice in the organisation, close them down and outsource the function to someone more expensive and less effective.
11. Promulgate changes to any systems that effectively meet client/customer needs.
12. Introduce a completely untried IT system designed to integrate all existing systems and produce massive productivity savings.
13. Sack any operational staff who had not previously taken redundancy packages for the failures in these changes to systems and the IT implementation.
14. Announce another major reorganisation to enhance effectiveness and focus more effectively on change.
15. Move on to next job, before the organisation goes into critical state and after including in CV details of change management expertise, to start the process all over again.

Speaking to PR people about change management and its destructive impact you always get rueful agreement on how it works and why itís bad -- but most PR people go along with it because thatís the way to keep your job.

The Melbourne University study, written by associate professor Anthony LaMontagne, found that 1.5 million workers have, or have had, depression with the condition caused by job strain in the case of 13% of men and 17% of women. The annual cost of this $730 million and this is probably a small part of the total cost of lost productivity from toxic workplaces and mindless change.
At the same time the AICD is advocating more business nous in the government sector -- presumably the same sort of nous that has given us the GFC; psychopathic (sorry I mean charismatic) CEOs who sack people and urge the government to cut spending on social programs to pay for the cost of cleaning the GFC mess up; and, appeals for reforms that always leave most people worse off.

All these business claims have become conventional wisdom as PR platoons promote the platitudes and politicians and the media uncritically accept them.
The interesting thing about this conventional wisdom is that it is buttressed by an arrogant certainty that the proponents of change are right and that there is no alternative. GE CEO Jeff Immelt, during his recent visit to Australia, didnít shy away from organisationsí need to change (GE is no angel in the retrenchment field) but argued that managers need to listen to others and that "No matter how much you think you are listening, no matter how much you think you are in touch with markets, you can always do better. I think remaining extremely humble about what you know and what you donít know is crucial".

Listening, of course, takes time. But people rushing to move on to the next position before the damning impact of their changes becomes apparent, are also the ones most notorious for arguing that change must be speedy.

*Ritual declaration of interest: the author has worked on change management programs in the private and public sector but no longer does

Could this sound like an Airline you know ??

:ugh:

Oxidant
17th Nov 2010, 17:50
HotNhigh
- (#3) well said.
- (#12) agree (concise list by the way), but it won't happen, (can't), in the modern management world. (see #29)

Spanner Turner
- (#29) so bloody true. Prof Noel Turnbull is dead on. {I was disposed of at step eight (fed gov dept)}.


Any way these two gentlemen can be put on the Board at QF?
(Between them they have more vision & braincells than the current lot combined!)

Oakape
17th Nov 2010, 20:20
The prominence of accountants, encroaching into operational areas where their discipline has no experience eventually triggers the sequence of events that prove catastropic.

Accountants - they know the cost of everything & the value of nothing. Particularly in this business.

Lodown
17th Nov 2010, 21:06
Once again, my family and I are about to cross the Pacific. After several experiences, each progressively worse, we booked with another airline. (The last flight across with Qantas resulted in a 48 hour test of endurance...and coffee.) It's a less convenient schedule than Qantas, but I'll be enormously happy if the airline just takes off and lands somewhat close to scheduled times. And it's not just me and my family that has noticed it. Mr Mott, continued knocking will not make it better, but Qantas has far worse issues...the customers are leaving for other carriers. I've had enough of the BS dressed up as "customer service".

Sunfish
17th Nov 2010, 21:18
Spanner Turner, thank you for a wonderful post!

The reasoning behind the managers actions are as follows in bold:

The guide said "change managers":

1. Announce soon after arrival, and before any analysis that might cloud judgments, that the organisation must face up to the new competitive environment and must change to survive.

I must make my mark and be seen to be doing something.

2. Sack significant numbers of incumbent managers and replace them with friends and colleagues from previous jobs.

I will not tolerate folk who are smarter and more expereinced than me, especially when they say "You can't do it that way! or "That won't work!" My friends don't know anything, so they will try to make my ideas work.

3. Increase the number of middle managers and management levels giving new managers titles such as organisational capability development manager.

I don't know how to do "X", therefore I will insulate myself from failure and put another management layer between myself and "X". I can always sack them if they can't do "X" either.


4. Ensure none of the new managers have definable line management accountabilities or job descriptions written in English.

This is called diffusion of responsibility. I also start committees. Whatever the causes of failures are, it isn't me.

5. Objectify the people the organisation is set up to serve. E.g. citizens become customers of government departments while students and courses at universities become clients and services.

I simplify the business by removing any need to treat people or problems as individual things requiring pricey intelligence, expertise, training, experience and attention to detail. One size fits all. Our products and services can now be delivered by cheap untrained monkeys. Read the manual.

..Besides, I like firing people who think they are more important than me, how dare they?

6. Announce a major reorganisation to affect change and confront the challenges of the competitive environment.

I want to be seen to be responsible only for good things. The bad things that I can't understand, I can ignore and preferably outsource.

7. Identify another agency or group with which to merge, form strategic alliances or generally hold meetings with.

Here is my next regular overseas trip and another Board position. The lunches at the club are nice too.


8. Retrench as many operational staff as possible, singling out in particular anyone with detailed knowledge of how systems actually work.

I remove anyone who has the capacity to disagree or contradict me.

9. Introduce a culture based on continuous meetings and managerial Newspeak while insulating all managers from any operational realities.

Bullsh1t baffles brains. No one will understand what I am trying unsuccessfully to do.


10. Identify any centres of excellence or international best practice in the organisation, close them down and outsource the function to someone more expensive and less effective.

You are a threat to my authority. No one must know that there are sections of this organisation that are successful without my inputs. You must not succeed without my direction and management

11. Promulgate changes to any systems that effectively meet client/customer needs.

I want to be able to understand the business and pry and poke without having to talk to any human.

12. Introduce a completely untried IT system designed to integrate all existing systems and produce massive productivity savings.

Mr. X of (Name your consulting company) takes me to lunch and tells me I'm a genius.

13. Sack any operational staff who had not previously taken redundancy packages for the failures in these changes to systems and the IT implementation.

Mr. X tells me to sack Mr. Y before he tells the Board that the system doesn't work and can never work.

14. Announce another major reorganisation to enhance effectiveness and focus more effectively on change.

I cover my tracks by confusing the paperwork. What's past cannot now be investigated


15. Move on to next job, before the organisation goes into critical state and after including in CV details of change management expertise, to start the process all over again.

Take the money and run, it's getting hot in hear. I have not produced improvements, things are getting worse.

Not all MBA's (including me) think this way.

blow.n.gasket
18th Nov 2010, 02:21
Sounds to me like Karl Marx might have been thinking of these Management clowns when he wrote
"events that first occur as tragedy often return as farce":}

Sunfish
18th Nov 2010, 02:25
As someone once quoted a manager: I don't care if it works in practice, I want to see it work in theory!

max1
18th Nov 2010, 03:53
And I thought I only knew one lot doing it this way.
That is spooky reading Spanner Turner.

gobbledock
18th Nov 2010, 09:42
CASA Senior Management C.V -

Announce soon after arrival, and before any analysis that might cloud judgments, that the organisation must face up to the new competitive environment and must change to survive.
2. Sack significant numbers of incumbent managers and replace them with friends and colleagues from previous jobs.
3. Increase the number of middle managers and management levels giving new managers titles such as organisational capability development manager.
4. Ensure none of the new managers have definable line management accountabilities or job descriptions written in English.
5. Objectify the people the organisation is set up to serve. E.g. citizens become customers of government departments while students and courses at universities become clients and services.
6. Announce a major reorganisation to affect change and confront the challenges of the competitive environment.
7. Identify another agency or group with which to merge, form strategic alliances or generally hold meetings with.
8. Retrench as many operational staff as possible, singling out in particular anyone with detailed knowledge of how systems actually work.
9. Introduce a culture based on continuous meetings and managerial Newspeak while insulating all managers from any operational realities.
10. Identify any centres of excellence or international best practice in the organisation, close them down and outsource the function to someone more expensive and less effective.
11. Promulgate changes to any systems that effectively meet client/customer needs.
12. Introduce a completely untried IT system designed to integrate all existing systems and produce massive productivity savings.
13. Sack any operational staff who had not previously taken redundancy packages for the failures in these changes to systems and the IT implementation.
14. Announce another major reorganisation to enhance effectiveness and focus more effectively on change.
15. Move on to next job, before the organisation goes into critical state and after including in CV details of change management expertise, to start the process all over again.

teresa green
18th Nov 2010, 11:57
Imagine this. Arriving on arm. Capt Bloggs to LAME. The nose wheel has severe vibrations. LAME, Skipper, I must have that in writing, I cannot talk to you. Capt. Bloggs. What the Fu$%? LAME. I cannot speak to you it has to be in writing. Capt. Bullshit. No Capt. CASA has decreed it must be in writing. Capt. Fu$% CASA. Then lets go back to the way it was. Arriving on arm. Capt to LAME, the nose wheel is vibrating big time, have a look will yer mate. LAME, she is stuffed skipper, looks like she has earned herself a night in the hanger. You will have to find yourself another set of wings. Will you ring ops or will I? Which one makes sense? Madness.

qf 1
18th Nov 2010, 18:02
i think it's time to get a refund on those unused tickets to Europe,and finally dump those QF shares that im holding,while theres still some cash around from the flying kangaroo.Looks like QF is heading the way of Ansett.There i said it..

ampclamp
18th Nov 2010, 18:36
G'day trees are green:8
well we do want it in writing but... the rest is just laughable if indeed it is a correct quote and not out of context.
I thoroughly enjoy my interaction with the crews I meet.We sometimes do not see everything in the same light but I respect their job and for professionalism they show.

Often with tricky defects you just need to talk to the crew.Doing that via ops or anyone else out of touch is lunacy and cannot happen if they actually wish to fly at some stage.

back to the topic, I hope AJ and the board do come to grips with public perceptions and deal with root cause not brand management alone.

Sunfish
18th Nov 2010, 18:46
TIMA9X:

Appears the word's out in the mainstream business press.

The word has been out since 2004 when I first visited this website.

The problem is that incentivising managers with bonuses for short term performance is lethal to an organisation if it is carried to the highest levels.

The Board and Senior management of a company should be thinking Ten years out.

Middle management maybe Five years out.

Coal face people, one year out.

Bonuses should reflect those time horizons.

Giving a CEO stock options that are exerciseable in a year or Two is asking for trouble because the temptation is to maximise short term value NOT long term shareholder value.

This problem is compounded even further in airlines by Two other well known factors.

Firstly any maintenance engineer knows that the guy who brings in $100 of new revenue is rewarded with pats on the back. The engineer who just saves the airline $100 in repair costs by quickly fixing a problem is invisible and gets nothing.

Engineers can live with that if they have managers who understand this perpetual issue and act accordingly - such as reminding the big bosses that the Qantas brand value as the worlds safest airline is built solely on its investment in the training and maintenance of its staff, nothing else. This is why the Chairman Jacksons (?) quote to the effect that "The Board and CEO have done more for this airline than anyone else" was so offensive.


The second factor is that the damage caused by wear and corrosion are cumulative and it takes many years to appear in the structure and systems of an aircraft (not so the engines). If, thanks to the Australian taxation system, you wish to keep your aircraft operating efficiently for Twenty plus years, you had better be doing more than just the specified minimum.

However, if I am a manager on a short term bonus scheme, and I plan to leave the company in Five years time, what incentive have I got to do the work and make the bonus reducing investment that will pay off long after I've left?

You think a few cans of Boeshield T9 and a few hours labour for spraying are expensive? Try costing the time of needing a pneumatic hammer to get out rusted in wing to body pins a few year later. Try costing glass bead blasting to remove corrosion that wouldn't have happened if the surfaces had been protected properly.

The standard QF line today and in future is "we do what the manufacturer says to do", which is strictly correct, but it ignores the fact that if you are the pioneer of a new aircraft type, you had better be doing a dam sight more than the manufacturer tells you to do since you are going to be the first to find out what wears out and generally goes wrong.

This is why Alan Joyces' latest update on the engines was so nauseating - blaming Rolls Royce for everything. Would I be right in thinking that Fifteen years ago QF would have told Rolls Royce in no uncertain terms that they had a problem, not sat on their hands like some beggar waiting for the great RR oracle to speak.

Furthermore, although I stand to be corrected, the American maintenance systems are based on a "buy it fly it, then sell it" approach that sees a much faster fleet turnover than Australia because of the different taxation treatements of capital goods. Either deliberately or otherwise their maintenance system was (still is?) geared to this American cycle of maybe using an aircraft for Ten years or so then flogging it. That meant that in the past Australian airlines were used to dealing with problems that no one else had seen (or cared about).

My guess is that QF will learn nothing from this incident and the strategy will continue as planned. The worst thing is that if it took Ten years of cost cutting to reach the situation we have today, it will take an equal amount of time, and a hell of a lot of investment, to get back to where you were, assuming there was even the motivation at Board level to do so, which I don't think there is.

teresa green
19th Nov 2010, 03:20
Of course it was tongue in cheek, AMPCLAMP, more like the early days, not now. But it was more to ridicule the crazy stuff that comes out of CASA and earlier BASI. And it was also to show that there was good blood between pilots and engineers over the years, which is harder to maintain, with more paper work than dialogue.

BrissySparkyCoit
19th Nov 2010, 06:02
This is why Alan Joyces' latest update on the engines was so nauseating - blaming Rolls Royce for everything. Would I be right in thinking that Fifteen years ago QF would have told Rolls Royce in no uncertain terms that they had a problem,

This is spot on Sunfish.

There was a time when Qantas lead the way and others played catch up. Now we just follow, playing catch up.:ugh:

Worrals in the wilds
19th Nov 2010, 10:53
Good call Sunfish, interesting reading in that and many recent posts.

I guess the question arises then, where did Qantas get these guys? It's not just Qantas either. Many Australian businesses are still running 1990s rules when it comes to short term bonuses and maintenance being the Devil's work. Why Is It So?

The top 20 Australian companies basically do banking, mining, food and (one) airline. We are an educated, wealthy, resource rich country. Why can't we do anything else? Is it because our crappy boards and senior executives are largely incapable of long term vision when they can skive off with short term bonuses?

Maybe banking, mining and food make such obscene profits with relatively little strategic planning that they will generally do well whatever decisions are made at the top level. Businesses that require a little more group grey matter don't seem to be shining in Australia, and I wonder if that's because our senior exec class are for the most part lousy, at least those who remain on-shore.

BrissySparkyCoit
19th Nov 2010, 14:11
Great stuff. Ma and Pa kettle are getting all hot and agitated under their tweed coats and panama hats watching their precious investment wither away. I hope they feel the same anger at the next shareholder love-in and decide not to be such a bunch of dumbf*#ks by agreeing to remunerate these executive toads with such ludicrous salaries and share options.

I think you will find "Ma and Pa kettle" are a very weak voice when it comes to Qantas investors. Institutional investors would have far greater say...... and many would be mates with the board/executive management"!!!

Sunfish
19th Nov 2010, 15:21
Worrals:

I guess the question arises then, where did Qantas get these guys? It's not just Qantas either. Many Australian businesses are still running 1990s rules when it comes to short term bonuses and maintenance being the Devil's work. Why Is It So?

The top 20 Australian companies basically do banking, mining, food and (one) airline. We are an educated, wealthy, resource rich country. Why can't we do anything else? Is it because our crappy boards and senior executives are largely incapable of long term vision when they can skive off with short term bonuses?

Maybe banking, mining and food make such obscene profits with relatively little strategic planning that they will generally do well whatever decisions are made at the top level. Businesses that require a little more group grey matter don't seem to be shining in Australia, and I wonder if that's because our senior exec class are for the most part lousy, at least those who remain on-shore.

1. How do they get there? Narcissists attract each other. Once one of them gets into senior management, if not found out and quickly removed, they will attract and hire others. No one but another narcissist will willingly work for one or sit on a company Board with one because normal people don't like the constant backside licking that is required to keep in their good books. Narcissists don't mind giving the daily kiss to the bosses backside.

Where do they find them? I've had Two Directors foisted on my previous organisation that were recruited by the big boss in the Qantas Chairmans lounge. That is a major recruiting ground. The payback for big boss was a couple of new Board seats for themselves.

2. Can we do anything else but mining banking and farming? Yes we can and do, there are quite a few internationally competitive high technology manufacturing companies in Australia. I've worked with a few of them. You will rarely if ever hear about them because the first rule of businesss when you are making money is to shut up about it. Did you know that the world leader in tobacco handling equipment is Australian? Tool and cutter grinders and specialised machine tools used by Rolls Royce, GE, GM, Airbus and almost every other technology company in the world? There is one aerospace company I know where the owners buy new Ferrarris every year, they are so successful. There is a company only a few blocks from me that is the worlds leading producer of mega - super yacht hardware, yet nobody even knows of its existence. The only companies you hear about in the press are generally the unprofitable whiners.

3. The trouble is that once you get an infestation of narcissists in a business, I know of no way of purging them with the exception of almost killing the business. At that point they will leave in droves, like rats leaving a sinking ship, because they hate being associated with unattractive, unfashionable, non performing businesses, and they cannot and will not give of themselves to turn things around except by cost cutting. They like firing people. It makes them feel powerful.

Fruet Mich
19th Nov 2010, 17:20
No wonder Qantas customers are leaving. All of these hi paying, hi yield passengers must be absolutely guttered when they board a 20 year old 74, 76 or 73 and play roulette on whether they are going to make their important meeting when the bogans are boarding a brand spanking new A320 and soon to be (for the first 15) brand spanking new B787s.

I think it shows absolute contempt to our customers and absolute disregard to the importance of our business traveller who IS the backbone to the continued success of this company. Like it or not, Alan Joyce has signed off on all new expansion of the "Qantas group" going the "leisure" travel way. Jetstar continue to get a new A320 every month for their bogans to pay $39 to go from MEL-SYD when Qantas still keep trudging away with the trusty ol 76.

It also makes me laugh when AJ keeps replying to the age of the Qantas fleet with how ever man billions of dollars of upgrade of aircraft on the way. I wonder just how much of those billions are "upgrades" and not just expansion for jetstar.

Unfortunately we lost our only chance of a great CEO who was a career Qantas man with passion for this company. He now works for Virgin. Just you watch the company go gang busters now.

VH-Cheer Up
19th Nov 2010, 22:07
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactusjack
Great stuff. Ma and Pa kettle are getting all hot and agitated under their tweed coats and panama hats watching their precious investment wither away. I hope they feel the same anger at the next shareholder love-in and decide not to be such a bunch of dumbf*#ks by agreeing to remunerate these executive toads with such ludicrous salaries and share options.
Originally Posted by BrissySparkyCoit
I think you will find "Ma and Pa kettle" are a very weak voice when it comes to Qantas investors. Institutional investors would have far greater say...... and many would be mates with the board/executive management"!!!

Is there any Australian public company where the shareholder vote on executive remuneration is actually binding? I don't think so...

Cunning_Stunt
19th Nov 2010, 22:10
Very thoughtful article in this morning's Age Newspaper. Worth a read.

ALAEA Fed Sec
19th Nov 2010, 22:27
Fasten your seatbelts (http://www.theage.com.au/national/fasten-your-seatbelts-20101119-1817t.html)

Here is the link.

ampclamp
20th Nov 2010, 01:10
Here's an example of what can happen in the outside world when employees save a company lots of money with good ideas.
THEY are rewarded, not bigger bonuses for the execs only.
From abc news site...
An employee ideas program has paid off in more ways than one, with massive christmas bonuses for 800 North Queensland workers.
At a lavish Christmas party in Townsville last night, 55 luxury cars and 700 Pacific island holidays were handed out to workers at the Yubulu Nickel Refinery.
Mining executive Clive Palmer says the rewards are well deserved as workers helped turn around the refinery, which had faced closure before his company bought the business last year.
Mr Palmer says the plant has gone from strength to strength, and employee efforts have contributed to around $16 million dollars in business savings.

Between you and me , readers I would suggest these folks are feeling decidedly engaged and would bend over backwards for Mr Palmer.He is of course a very wealthy man in a different business but this is a clear indication of how to do it.

maggotdriver
20th Nov 2010, 06:35
To whomever wrote that article, thank-you! Someone finally has articulated what we think in a concise and factual prťcis. I'll guarantee he had more than 150 hours!:ok:

VH-Cheer Up
21st Nov 2010, 05:55
@ampclamp: Excellent article, thanks. Note that his employees point out potential savings to Mr. Palmer, rather than vice versa. Big difference!

newsensation
21st Nov 2010, 06:31
Mining executive Clive Palmer says the rewards are well deserved as workers helped turn around the refinery, which had faced closure before his company bought the business last year.
Now there is a Mining Exec i would like to have on the Board of Qantas!

ampclamp
21st Nov 2010, 06:50
I dont think Mr P has much time for organised labour but if he looks after his people there is much less need for the protections of organised labour.