PDA

View Full Version : Why does Joyce hate Qantas so much?


The masked goatrider
6th Dec 2010, 19:48
As a proud Qantas employee I am finding it increasingly difficult to drag myself out of bed at 3AM to go to that place under the leadership of AJ. Does anyone else have the same problem? How much sense does this make?


Qf 11 Tues 6 Dec 2010. Qantas with numerous aircraft parked in the desert have now run out of planes. The Qantas service was covered by a leased A340 from Air Tahiti.

At the same time VH-EBJ (former Qantas 330) is in a paint shop having the kangaroo tail replaced with a nice big star.

:D

The Kelpie
6th Dec 2010, 20:07
Oh and if there had been a mechanical issue on the A340 that would not have been Qantas fault because it was an aircraft that had been leased from and maintained by Air Tahiti!!

I think I am getting it. Maybe they can cross hire an aircraft from Garuda Air it will be cheaper and QF will make more profit!!

In my opinion any company that takes another company's product or materials and mixes them together to make a different product that is 'branded' as their own and that generates profit for themselves should take full responsibity and not try to blame the companies providing the constituent parts. After all that is business!

More to Follow

The Kelpie

Oh Me Oh My
6th Dec 2010, 20:19
I don't know if he hates us but he certainly doesn't love us
He offshores pilot jobs to Singapore and New Zealand to avoid paying minimum wage, I heard the pilots from Jetconnect get $42,000 a year New Zealand Dollars ! god knows what the SIN pilots get :sad:

If you speak out against unsafe practices he sacks you or stands you down

He tells one and all he is engaging his employees but it is not true engagement surveys taken 12months after Joyce's ascension to the throne showed the same results as under dixon's reign, all red,all disengagement and that included his own management I bet he doesn't release those results to the press :ugh:

He appears to be a bully and a fibber covering his mistakes by standing over people it seems the only thing that changed since dicko went is the accent :*

The Kelpie
6th Dec 2010, 20:49
Ah but what Joyce does not realize yet is that there is an industrial relations shit sandwich on it's way with his name on it!!

More to follow

The Kelpie

Aerozepplin
6th Dec 2010, 21:06
I assume CASA’s risk assessment procedures are flashing big red warning lights? After all, staff morale is an important element in maintaining the desired safety culture right?

Capt Kremin
6th Dec 2010, 22:10
I say this through gritted teeth but to be fair, EBJ was planned to go to J* for some time. Two new A330's, EBO and EBP, have arrived in mainline in the last few weeks and no-one could have predicted what was going to happen to Nancy Bird.

But I do believe Joyce is still too focused on Jetstar. Particularly now fleet replacement is going to be such an issue with the 747's and the 767's.

dragon man
6th Dec 2010, 22:22
Once more i dont think Joyce , the board or senior management have any idea whats going on. The airline is in deep trouble fleet wise as we have missed a generation of aircraft (777), the 380 and 787 have issues and the 747s and 330s all need a refurb to a decent standard of IFE and J class seats. None of this can be rectified quickly, the first 747 goes in in August 2011 and asfar as i know the 330s are not planned for a cabin upgrade. The airline disintegrates while Joyce fiddles.

skybed
6th Dec 2010, 23:04
here is why, recently we had the worst engagement pulse survey and what has the board decided to do. overall managament changes included an increase in salaries combined from 8,3 million (or nearby) to 12,4 million. also the reclassification of departmental and senior departmental heads mean a whopping salary increase. IT PAYS TO KEEP STAFF DISENGAGED!
As the Chairman said at the AGM there are plenty of people who want to work for QF. James Strong runs the remunaration assessments and you can be assured it never goes down!:yuk:

DEFCON4
7th Dec 2010, 01:21
Joyce focuses on Jet star because it is what he knows.
He has no skillset to run an international airline operation
Joyce is just another incompetent who has been promoted to a level that is way above his skillset.
One misaligned bore hole is going to bring the whole house of cards down and no one will be held accountable

Ken Borough
7th Dec 2010, 01:42
Defcon4 wrote

He has no skillset to run an international airline operation
Joyce is just another incompetent who has been promoted to a level that is way above his skillset.

What special insights and qualifications do you have to write such drivel? Are you presenting your CV to Leigh Clifford rather than spending time on PPRUNE, as your talents, such as they are, have been overlooked during the CEO selection process.:mad::mad::ugh::ugh:

Tankengine
7th Dec 2010, 01:47
If it looks like a duck it probably is one!

You don't need to be a duck to see one!:ugh:

Jabiman
7th Dec 2010, 02:18
Qantas mishaps since 2006 | Perth Now (http://www.perthnow.com.au/travel/news/qantas-mishaps-since-2006/story-fn30173u-1225949509032)

Bit of a trend there?

Dragun
7th Dec 2010, 04:08
Oh yea let's get our 'facts' from "Perth Now" - bird strike? Really?

However, if you want to use that list of crap, how about you add the shown number of incidents up and divide it by the number of sectors flown across the entire Qantas group for the period shown then multiply that number by 100. I think you'll find it is a very, very small percentage. Then do the same for every other airline in the world and compare the figures. That will at least be a little more realistic. Listing erroneous bits of data proves nothing.

Jabawocky
7th Dec 2010, 04:15
yep......FACTS IN ISOLATION

Mind you they seem to be having more facts in recent years :ooh:

Ken Borough
7th Dec 2010, 04:50
I tink he hates anything that could impede his tasteful salary and bonus scheme

Over the years I have engaged professionally and socially with quite a few Qantas executives. It might surprise the cynical here that not once did I see any decision-making at Qantas with a view to a bonus or higher salary. Without exception, all have been dedicated to making Qantas a better place for staff, customers and shareholders.

Here's a challenge to the nay-sayers: are any of them able to produce positive proof or even evidence that the Qantas people with whom they interact have been looking to procure or enhance his or her bonus rather than doing 'what's right'?:ok:

Capt Kremin
7th Dec 2010, 05:06
.... the APA Bid .....

Ken Borough
7th Dec 2010, 05:22
Hey Cactus. Don't shoot the messenger and don't attack the man. That's is the tactic best left for the losers. Anyway, your character assessment is so far from the mark it is just laughable. ,

BTW, ever heard of the adage that goes along the lines that the burden of proof rests with he who makes the assertion? I suspect not as it is almost certainly not deep enough for people with your obvious intelligence. Now leave me, and others with whom you disagree, alone. Attack the topic with vigour, debate it for all you're worth but don't resort to personal villification. OK?

porch monkey
7th Dec 2010, 05:25
Shit Capt K, That was too easy.......:DWhat say you Ken?

blow.n.gasket
7th Dec 2010, 05:30
So let me get this right.
ALLCO makes the bid for Qantas in partnership and it now appears they didn't even have "the money"??
Does this whole APA-Qantas takeover fiasco look at all kosher , on any level?

What was it again? $100 Million for the top dog execs, was to be siphoned off for all their hard work?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif



KPMG auditor suspended over Allco bungle

Tracy Lee
From:The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
December 07, 2010 12:00AM A PARTNER at accountancy giant KPMG has been suspended for nine months.
He will also pay a fine of $10,000 after botching the audit of Allco Financial Group.
In an investigation of Allco's accounts, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission said it was "concerned" Sydney-based Christopher Neville Whittingham "failed to carry out or adequately and properly perform his duties as an auditor".
It also said it was concerned Mr Whittingham failed to ensure the audit was conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards.
ASIC found that Mr Whittingham had misclassified an entry of $1.8 billion in interest-bearing loans as a non-current liability rather than a current liability when he led the audit of the company's accounts for the 2006-07 financial year.
But the corporate regulator did not consider that Mr Whittingham's actions caused the group's demise last year.
Mr Whittingham, who is not in the country, has been a registered auditor since December 2002.
He led a KPMG team of more than 20 auditors in performing audit duties in 2007 for the now defunct financial services group.
Allco was one of the high-profile collapses during the global financial crisis. It was placed in liquidation after it was discovered in May that it could not repay more than $1bn in loans.
A KPMG spokesperson confirmed Mr Whittingham remained on the payroll of KPMG despite the ASIC suspension.
"ASIC notes that Mr Whittingham acted swiftly and appropriately when the error came to his attention and proactively engaged in discussions with ASIC on the matter," KPMG representative Kristin Silva said.
In the notes to the undertaking, Mr Whittingham said he disagrees with ASIC's assessment but he agreed to the enforcable undertaking which has resulted in his suspension and a fine.
The undertakings also require Mr Whittingham to take 10 hours of continuing professional education during the suspension period and have his first three audits reviewed by another auditor.
While Mr Whittingham cannot work as an auditor in Australia, he was sent by KPMG to Thailand last year to work as a consultant. He is not expected to return from the secondment until April 2012.

Ken Borough
7th Dec 2010, 05:48
PM,

I think the jury has considered the APA Bid. A lot has been said, written and investigated, but not a soul has been charged or sued to my knowledge, criminally or civilly. I'm not prepared to comment one way or the other but you don't know for example what those involved on the edges were fed by those at the centre of things.

It is very easy to make (outrageous) claims as is often the case on PPRUNE but the proof is invariably absent. Rather than sensibly debate etc., there are quite a few dick-heads who just want to defame and otherwise say scurrilous things, especially about those who might be more successful than are the claimants. :ok:

Jabawocky
7th Dec 2010, 05:49
And do Allco still own a number of the QF fleet. I remember seeing somewhere the numbers but it elludes me now.

That whole Allco/APA thing stinks worse than a WWTP on a bad day :\

Arnold E
7th Dec 2010, 06:23
Without exception, all have been dedicated to making Qantas a better place for staff, customers and shareholders.

Well Ken, it has clearly NOT worked with the employees. Reading any of the threads, oh well, most of them anyway, you can see a level of venom directed at Q management that I have not seen in any company I have worked for. So seeing that, I would have to say that engagement by the management of the employees has failed by any measure.

The Green Goblin
7th Dec 2010, 06:27
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Airlines do not work in a free market under the shareholder model.

They become profit driven rather than safety driven.

Airlines are essential infrastructure (like buses, trains etc) and should be owned and operated by the taxpayer, reportable to the federal government, and managed as a private company outside of government bureaucracy.

Qantas under the taxpayer may not have been the most profitable airline, but it achieved it's safety record and reputation of exellence while operating in this manner. You always knew you would get home, safety was paramount and profits were a lower priority.

It has only taken 15 years for the private sector to destroy it.

newsensation
7th Dec 2010, 07:11
It might surprise the cynical here that not once did I see any decision-making at Qantas with a view to a bonus or higher salary. Without exception, all have been dedicated to making Qantas a better place for staff, customers and shareholders. hahahahahahahahahahahah you cant be serious!

mmciau
7th Dec 2010, 07:49
The Green Goblin,

Agree. Qantas in answerable to the Shareholders. And many Shareholders are Institutions that only remain interested in Dividends and other Financial returns.


Mike

ampclamp
7th Dec 2010, 08:12
The only time I saw Dixon smile was when he was cuddling up to Marge and company during the bid.
50 million dollar smile.
Yes the takeover money would have delivered then holders with a windfall but the airline would have utterly crumbled under the mountain of debt that would absolutely have been placed on its balance sheet.
We'd all be on contracts lower money crap T&C if you had a job at all.

A very senior man, JB I think, said after the bid failed that for the 6 months leading up to and during the bid it was the entire focus of the exec committee. eyes off the real game.Over and out.
Ken you seem a decent fellow but frankly out of touch with what is going down there.

TIMA9X
7th Dec 2010, 08:58
I have said it before and I'll say it again. Airlines do not work in a free market under the shareholder model.

They become profit driven rather than safety driven.
Hard to see upside in deal - Business - Business - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/hard-to-see-upside-in-deal/2006/12/14/1165685822889.html)

Yep

and

.... the APA Bid ..... Probably a lot to do with the current image situation....

For me, happy staff is an airlines biggest asset, after all, they are the delivers to the shareholders, they do it everyday under all market conditions.

The company image is set by the managers.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_pFSzrseqLnk/TP4El3veQII/AAAAAAAAArU/o6j2gD_iBAc/s640/Image-1000-threads.jpg

The Mr Fixit
7th Dec 2010, 09:12
Joyce impersonates as a CEO, he has not the capabilty nor the foresight.
He is at best a mid level accountant used to plotting passenger loads and nothing more.
We are in the hands of one who is incapable and god now can only help us, Joyce along with his sponsor Clifford will destroy the last great australian icon and they will not care.
Jetstar is Joyce's pride and joy, Qantas is merely the host that the parasite feeds off and it will leave behind a shell that will collapse unto itself.
A sad tale to end the legacy of a once truly great airline

The Green Goblin
7th Dec 2010, 09:31
Look at AirNZ. Private industry ran it into the ground through bad decisions, the government bailed it out, retained a large portion, and look at it now.

I think Qantas will go the same way. The loons will continue on this destructive path, and the tax payer will end up with the wreck and bailout.

Personally I hope it is soon.

Clipped
7th Dec 2010, 09:41
Just about sums it up Mr F.

Clifford is the one pulling the Irishman's strings. He has blurred his responsibilities as Chairman but is moreso a psuedo CEO.

Oh and about that APA bid.... white collar crime, nothing more and nothing less than an act of sinister greed. As someone mentioned earlier, noone was prosecuted .... well that just about gives you an insight of our real corporate, regulatory and legal framework ... it is a very elite boys club up there.

Massey058
7th Dec 2010, 13:10
Look at AirNZ. Private industry ran it into the ground through bad decisions, the government bailed it out, retained a large portion, and look at it now.

BIL most certainly did run it into the ground. Don't necessarily like everything they do now (Seats to Suit, Rico are 2 things in particular) but they have done well overall.

Surely passengers see through Qantas and not just those of us with an interest in the industry we work within. So much of what they do is appalling and it is just the little things sometimes which make you think, what is this amateur hour at my little airline?

Now in all fairness my last few flights were an improvement, the food was good, almost SQ good. But the product overall is confused and not really becoming of a 'premier' airline.

And JetStar... despise it, truly despise it. Never in my life would I willingly purchase a ticket to fly with them.

We all know things work in cycles, it's just a shame that so much turmoil has to occur until things right themselves.

Keg
7th Dec 2010, 13:54
Without exception, all have been dedicated to making Qantas a better place for staff, customers and shareholders.

In that case they should be sacked for incompetence. Staff engagement at all time lows, customer satisfaction patchy at best, share price stagnant and no dividends at the moment. So which is it Ken? Personally I go for incompetent.

Lodown
7th Dec 2010, 14:05
Airlines do not work in a free market under the shareholder model.

There is ample evidence to indicate that they do. How many free market governments can you count that are rushing to absorb their airlines? ANZ: one. But maybe it is in the interest of the government to own the airline because it can't get the public support it needs to operate successfully internationally.

They become profit driven rather than safety driven.

Ample proof to indicate that profits won’t happen without safety. Ultimately, a private company has to make a profit to survive, but safety and profit are inextricably linked and decisions are made with reference to both. You might get some sympathy if you differentiate and argue on the basis of short, mid and long term profits. Like many companies in the last 15 years or so, long term survival was compromised for short-term profitability, in big part due to management contracts that encouraged self-interest.

Airlines are essential infrastructure (like buses, trains etc) and should be owned and operated by the taxpayer, reportable to the federal government, and managed as a private company outside of government bureaucracy.

And you don’t see the irony of your statement: owned by the government and managed as a private company outside of government bureaucracy? Let me know how that works out.

Part of the reason for privatizing airlines is that various governments determined that the airlines weren’t essential infrastructure. If one airline company collapses, another will spring up. You might have a supporter if you argue that the major aerodromes are essential infrastructure, but not one particular airline.

Qantas under the taxpayer may not have been the most profitable airline, but it achieved its safety record and reputation of excellence while operating in this manner. You always knew you would get home, safety was paramount and profits were a lower priority.

Profits attract investment. Qantas’ safety record and reputation for excellence were achieved because the market was closed to competition. It didn’t matter how much it spent (within reason), or how much it lost (within reason), or what it did, the market was protected. The market still is protected to a lesser degree through route approvals and landing slots. The difference is that Qantas has to make a profit to keep operating and attract investment and can be more competitive in chasing new markets.

It has only taken 15 years for the private sector to destroy it.

Not destroyed yet, but Dixon et al seem to be giving it a good college try. Depends on whether you’re a glass half full or a glass half empty person. Qantas certainly has some challenges to face. You should also recognize that Qantas as a company is a rarity in the business field. Very, very few companies last this long. Evolve or perish. Qantas isn’t doing well at evolving, but one can only guess at what this would be like if it was still government owned. Dixon was arguing for raising the cap on overseas investment. Maybe, like ANZ, the private sector investment just isn't there from the pool of Aussie investors. It has to be difficult to operate as a quasi-government entity when investment restrictions are placed on a company in part because some in the government still like to think of a private company as a semi-essential infrastructure when it suits.

The other issue has been that Qantas has its cake and wants to eat it too. It wants the overseas investment, wants new routes and markets, but wants the route (government) protection in place. The company wouldn't likely be a viable entity without the route protections.

Sunfish
7th Dec 2010, 17:14
Ken Borough:

Over the years I have engaged professionally and socially with quite a few Qantas executives. It might surprise the cynical here that not once did I see any decision-making at Qantas with a view to a bonus or higher salary. Without exception, all have been dedicated to making Qantas a better place for staff, customers and shareholders.

Here's a challenge to the nay-sayers: are any of them able to produce positive proof or even evidence that the Qantas people with whom they interact have been looking to procure or enhance his or her bonus rather than doing 'what's right'?


Evidence?

1. The APA Bid in its entirety. There is at least one very good thread as to why this was an idea that was not in either the shareholders, employees or Australias interests. QF would be gone or on Government life support by now had it succeeded.

2. The "Hamilton Island" letter by Dixon - giving management his approval to denigrate potential customers.

3. Margaret Jacksons Christmas gift of Grange to Senior Managers while other staff were taking pay freezes.

4. Engagement surveys that demonstrated disengagement.

5. The famous "The Board is making the profits" or equivalent claim that devalued the staff.

6. The last Qantas Engineers EBA.

7. Numerous technical decisions that proved to be sub optimal, starting with the IFE decision, then continuing to variety of fleet upgrade and replacement decisions, the latest fiascos being the A380 and B787.

8. My personal favourite - outsourcing critical corporate capabilities - which has only just bitten QF over the A380 incident.

9. Numerous reports of the ego driven behaviour of senior management.

10. The creation of "Jetstar Asia".

11. The creation of Jetstar itself - often called brand cannibalism or in Polish; "Pissing in the soup".

12. The creation of a notional entity called "The Qantas Group" - entailing a layer of "Group General Managers" and associated support staff. This slows decision making even further.

13. The dumbing down of Qantas pilot requirements.

14. The closure of engineering facilities and the reduction in corporate technology and engineering capability.

Many of these decisions are yet to have their full negative impact. All demonstrate what I can only describe as a "perverted" world view of the role of senior management and the Board in a public company. If you want to understand what a better role model would be, look at Fyffe of Air NZ and Richard Branson.

To put that another way, an acquaintance of mine who was a Director of a major bank explained: "My job is to make sure that the people can succeed at what we ask them to do." Numerous threads on Pprune demonstrate that QF has reversed this idea.


Oh! And finally, and conclusively....................... the share price.

P.S. My interaction with Qantas Management was confined to being acquainted with a senior manager who made monthly visits to Melbourne, regularly regaling me with tales of his importance before swanning off to spend the night with his girlfriend of many years. He had a wife and Two kids in Sydney at the same time. Some model manager.

PittsS2A
7th Dec 2010, 18:27
BTW, ever heard of the adage that goes along the lines that the burden of proof rests with he who makes the assertion? I suspect not as it is almost certainly not deep enough for people with your obvious intelligence


Ha Ha Ha Sounds like Criminal Defence Lawyer speak !

Lets see now if you can provide us with at least 15 dot points listing what QF Management have done that has been good for the airline in terms of employee engagement, aircraft maintenance, safety and customer service that hasn't involved a cut back in spending to increase profits and put money in their own back pocket in the form of a performance bonus.


Over the years I have engaged professionally and socially with quite a few Qantas executives. It might surprise the cynical here that not once did I see any decision-making at Qantas with a view to a bonus (http://www.pprune.org/#) or higher salary. Without exception, all have been dedicated to making Qantas a better place for staff, customers and shareholders


If this is the case then the QANTAS Executive have failed miserably on all counts except for making the place better for staff in the upper echelons of management.

So glad you could join us on this Ken, perhaps when you next "engage" with your executive friends you could ask them, on our behalf, to clean the crap out of their ears, open their eyes and take a reality check because they clearly have no idea of reality when it comes to running an airline.

Capt_SNAFU
7th Dec 2010, 19:31
Freight cartels

A330-200/300 ordering debacle

"Polluting the culture" great for engagment

Sunfish
7th Dec 2010, 19:47
Pitts2A:

So glad you could join us on this Ken, perhaps when you next "engage" with your executive friends you could ask them, on our behalf, to clean the crap out of their ears, open their eyes and take a reality check because they clearly have no idea of reality when it comes to running an airline.

No! No! No! Pittsy, how many times do we need to tell you that we aren't "running an airline" as you put it! We are running the Qantas GROUP!

The airlines as you put it are merely part of the Qantas Group portfolio. They are mere investments by us, that's all.

We don't actually "run" as you quaintly put it, any airline , we run the GROUP. The day to day operations and decisions about the airlines we invest in are made by "little people" we employ, after all, if we need technical advice we will hire it at an hourly rate, and the day to day decisions about running an airline are so simple any fool can do it. We concern ourselves with far more important and difficult things, such as our vision for where the group should be heading in Twenty years time. We must not, and need not be distracted by mundane trivial technical matters, let alone individual customer experiences. That is what we employ staff for!

We are thinking strategically and looking at the big picture of where the group should position itself in the rapidly expanding great east Asia co-prosperity sphere. You have to understand that the world we live in today is dynamic! There are challenges that must be met! Concepts that must be mastered if we are to survive and prosper in an Internet enabled global village!

We need to optimise our investment portfolio for growth in emerging economies and structure our offerings in the transportation marketplace to offer meaningful value propositions to potential stakeholders. We also have had to instruct our staff that we are not made of money and careful attention needs to be paid to minimising input costs if we are to generate the returns on investment that the capital asset pricing model requires us to achieve.

Pittsy, be realistic! All this takes time and effort! Do you really want us to be focussing on little unimportant things like customer service, so called "staff engagement" and the non appearance of the B787? Don't you understand that pay rises are not possible as they impact our input costs? There are much bigger issues to be confronted! Be reasonable.

The The
7th Dec 2010, 20:28
The whole private equity thing goes back to 1998. At that time, the millionaire factory and Big Kerry were looking at the potential. Kerry backed out at the end, but guess who's kid was on the board when the APA bid came up and was so supportive of it?

The whole eight profit centres "silo" structure that management pursued since 2003 was centered around a private equity buyout. It would enable segments of the business to be sold off easily, it was designed to have a company structure attractive to a private equity bid (but expensive for the group with so much repeated management levels and overheads).

It is no secret that this was a huge part managements' agenda. They had been taking external advice on how to do it years before the APA bid

oicur12.again
7th Dec 2010, 21:17
“They become profit driven rather than safety driven.”

Interesting then that airlines such as Southwest exist in arguably the most competitive free market available and yet are both safe AND profitable. Very safe and very profitable.

The pursuit for profits can exist alongside a focus on safety. The market will provide corrections to an unsafe airline.

“Qantas under the taxpayer may not have been the most profitable airline”

Do you think? Very inefficient too.

“but it achieved it's safety record and reputation of exellence while operating in this manner.”

But what’s the point if it’s largely unprofitable? How long did you expect the tax payer to keep propping up the sheltered workshop?

“and profits were a lower priority.”

Which is why things changed.

breakfastburrito
7th Dec 2010, 23:16
TheThe, I'll go one step further.
Consider the Murdoch family controls NewCorp with somewhere around 15% of the shares, the Lowy family controls Westfields with a similar number. The important number here is that it is >10% of shares (prevents takeover via compulsory acquisition), in essence control is by virtue of the largest voting block.
Next, consider that the top executives were to receive 5% of the shares in the APA privatized entity plus bonus payments. It doesn't take much imagination to hypothesize that these bonus payments, or loans from the entity, could have been converted to shares prior the entity was floated via an IPO. Therefore, an extremely small group of executives could have in effect, ending up with control of the shell with only 10.1%, all without having to put one dollar in. This was a management takeover funded by APA to extract the cash for (dying) Allco. Was Geoff Dixon's son-in-law a j* executive (head of HR IIRC) at the time of the bid? Dynastic ambitions perhaps.

skybed
8th Dec 2010, 01:21
dimension. Qf people (dis)-connect has just been move to Mumbai. expect a slightly different accent.:ugh:

ampclamp
8th Dec 2010, 04:19
You are joking ?:confused:
Surely not that.

Arnold E
8th Dec 2010, 06:56
Interesting then that airlines such as Southwest exist in arguably the most competitive free market available and yet are both safe AND profitable. Very safe and very profitable.

Yep, But unlike Qf management, Southwest management engage with their staff and bring them along with them instead of trying to disengage and push the staff along.

cauldron
8th Dec 2010, 07:10
The putrid state of the toilets and the work areas in the corporate buildings at Mascot sum up what he thinks about the staff and the company.

Rose_Thorns
8th Dec 2010, 07:30
'The putrid state of the toilets and the work areas in the corporate buildings at Mascot sum up what he thinks about the staff and the company'.
'
How often have you known that the restaurant, pub, operation was rubbish when you toddle off to have a slash. Seriously, airports, coffee shops, cat houses, all same same. Scruffy dunny = crook operation.

Almost infallible logic. Company don't care, punters hate it; the rest becomes legend. :D

skybed
8th Dec 2010, 21:54
ampclamp. QF People connect reside now in Mumbai.:(

teresa green
9th Dec 2010, 01:32
The APA was white collar crime. No ifs, no buts. People should have faced court and did not. They must still be unable to believe they got away with it. But they did. Nobody will forget that.

noip
9th Dec 2010, 03:33
People connect in the sub-continent?

Obviously someone in management has been listening to this (http://www.interlinerates.com/blog/crewsked.mp3)

stubby jumbo
9th Dec 2010, 08:25
Speaking of the THE BLOCK.

Earlier this year -I dropped into to catch up with a mate in Dubai. He had a contact who took us through the Emirates EP Training facility.
As you would it expect...its a top notch set up. As for the toilets-pristine,clean with a hint of musk (smell)

In contrast...coming back to the QF EP "shed". The equipment is appalling, .......1970's style.

As for the dunnies. They stink, leak, water everywhere....total abomination.
There were some techies from another airline there as well......what an embarrassment. I'm sure we are charging top $$$$ for the pleasure of them being here.

Get with the program Joyce......

Shite -IN =Shite -OUT

QF is supposed to be a PREMIUM FCKUNI AIRLINE:mad::mad::mad:

The Kelpie
9th Dec 2010, 20:16
...and we thought it was unhealthy, apparently it is not!!

Top Stories
Bagging the boss helps boost productivity
Thursday 8:05PM

BEING*open about workplace frustrations can build morale and help solve problems, study finds.

Workers who want to earn themselves an employee of the month nomination should instead unleash their negative*feelings about their nine-to-five on their colleagues, a new study*suggests.

Dutch researcher Annefloor Klep claims that being open about workplace frustrations can hold the key to increasing*productivity.

The research found that running your mouth off at work created colleague unity and the free exchange of information in a team environment could also help solve*complicated analytical*problems.

Australian*clinical psychologist Dr Janet Hall backed up the findings and said it was beneficial to let off steam in the*office.

“Speak up or be a sook!” Dr Hall*said.

“We’re the world’s greatest*whingers.

“We all want harmony, however complaints are necessary for positive change and for folk to feel heard and*appreciated.

“Letting off steam is natural and makes you feel*better.”

But she warned that workers could face the sack if they went overboard with their venting and bagging the*boss.

Sunfish
9th Dec 2010, 22:01
Top Stories
Bagging the boss helps boost productivity
Thursday 8:05PM

BEING*open about workplace frustrations can build morale and help solve problems, study finds.

Workers who want to earn themselves an employee of the month nomination should instead unleash their negative*feelings about their nine-to-five on their colleagues, a new study*suggests.

Dutch researcher Annefloor Klep claims that being open about workplace frustrations can hold the key to increasing*productivity.

The research found that running your mouth off at work created colleague unity and the free exchange of information in a team environment could also help solve*complicated analytical*problems.

Australian*clinical psychologist Dr Janet Hall backed up the findings and said it was beneficial to let off steam in the*office.

“Speak up or be a sook!” Dr Hall*said.

“We’re the world’s greatest*whingers.

“We all want harmony, however complaints are necessary for positive change and for folk to feel heard and*appreciated.

“Letting off steam is natural and makes you feel*better.”

But she warned that workers could face the sack if they went overboard with their venting and bagging the*boss.

That is the simplest and most immediate way of getting fired I have ever heard of. A narcissistic manager has no sense of humor, no empathy and no compassion. You will be quickly euthanised...like an old Kelpie.

Worrals in the wilds
10th Dec 2010, 02:11
Further evidence that most psychologists need to visit the real world occasionally. :ugh:I'll bet she's never worked in a normal workplace or she'd know just how much of a career deadener 'speaking out' can be. Even universities aren't that utopic, unless you have tenure.

In a toxic workplace, merely volunteering to be the staff rep, union delegate or similar can be hazardous to promotion if your managers don't like hearing facts.

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 09:00
Further evidence that most psychologists need to visit the real world occasionally. :ugh:I'll bet she's never worked in a normal workplace or she'd know just how much of a career deadener 'speaking out' can be. Even universities aren't that utopic, unless you have tenure.
Areed:p:p:p

Arnold E
10th Dec 2010, 09:56
Catus, I too have seen one of my representatives turn to the dark side. Mate, I am old school, like it or lump it, I have NO respect for these people. I know this means nothing to you, I just get so frustrated with the way we are getting shafted, Sorry

Sunfish
10th Dec 2010, 09:59
Cactus:

Other times the delegates can turn into management footstools and be kissing management's kyber while feeding the rest of the members porkies.

So you were a member of the APE (Association of Professional Engineers) too?

Bruvva!

Clipped
10th Dec 2010, 10:19
Sunfish

Unbelievable, sure you weren't a Qf senior manager?

You must, have D Cox's Strategy Maps, red and blue versions.

Sunfish
10th Dec 2010, 17:54
Clipped, I've worked in management consulting, a few senior management positions in various industries, got an MBA along the way.

I think I've heard most of the jargon at one time or another, or even peddled some of it myself. It's not hard to string it all together and convince yourself and the gullible that you have invented a "New Management Paradigm" that is miraculously going to "transform" your business.

The reality is that the only way to build a business is through investment, including investment in people and their training and mentoring and the deliberate fostering and accumulation of experience. There is mounting evidence that experts are made, not born. Leaders also have to lead by example, if they can't or don't then your business will wither and die.

I learned a huge lesson at Ansett many years ago although I didn't understand it till years later, and it still isn't "discovered" and written up in the Harvard Business review. I was watching an engine change on a B737 because I had nothing better to do. The leading hand was a bearded old bloke, probably a year or Two from retirement. He was standing back apparently gas bagging with a Fifty something who was doing paperwork, collecting tags, etc., Then there was a Thirty something reading some technical manual, SB or whatever and fiddling with parts and part numbers, then there were a couple of Twenty somethings actually doing the change and handing tools to a couple of apprentices who were working their backsides off with cone bolts, etc. ..Then the old bastard who was running the team pointed at one of the apprentices and said something to the Fifty year old, who went over and spoke to the kid about what he was doing and made him do it differently.

I suddenly realised that what I was watching was a hierarchy of capability and experience, and that each age group perfectly complemented each other and compensated for what they could and couldn't do. Youth and enthusiasm at one end with not much brainpower, superb technical competence in the middle with some experience and rat like cunning people skills and experience at the top with probably not that much physical capacity left. Everything matched.

I later put it all together and discovered that every one of the problem businesses I have come across had roughly similar age groups in it - there was no variation. I worked out that twenty somethings make one type of business error, Thirty somethings make other types of mistakes, Sixty year olds make others, in other words, each age group has its own strengths and weaknesses, and if you don't balance that out by having an age spread in the workforce you are very vulnerable.

Look at what happened to OneTel. Was there anyone in that company, or its Board, over the age of Forty? I don't think so. Watch what happens to Google in the next few years. Maybe all I've done is rediscovered that you can't put an old head on young shoulders.

When I see the way idiots deliberately castrate companies and doom them by sacking older workers I want to be sick, because I know what will happen to the company sooner or later as a result. I'll bet there were blokes working in QF Engine overhaul who would have spotted that Trent problem, maybe even known that oil leaks and offset counterbores were always an issue with that design....but they were probably made redundant years ago. That has happened with virtually every company I know that "downsized" and outsourced. The wrong people are let go.

Anyway, I'm rambling, its 5.54 am and time to take Dog for her morning walk and a cup of coffee.

PittsS2A
10th Dec 2010, 18:38
What happened to Ken ?

Surely someone who was defending the QF Executive so vigourously could come up with some points on what exactly they have done to better the place !

Perhaps he has his mouth full so to speak ! :yuk:

LAME2
10th Dec 2010, 20:22
Great insight Sunfish. I think you have put into simple words something that is often unnoticed. Companies fail to see they have to plan on replacing those "expensive" and "highly licenced" older LAMES whilst they are still in their employment. In todays commercial environment, these same older LAMES are seen as a cost, not a benefit. A"highly licenced" LAME is often replaced with a single licence ex apprentice (only when the older LAME is "off the books), with an overall loss of both nett licences and technical expertice in the company. Accountants are then heard counting their percieved savings. The task of mentoring falls to the next level of age group who themselves are sometimes not that much older than the ex appentice. Everyone involved looses (except the older retired LAME).

Jabiman
10th Dec 2010, 22:07
Surely someone who was defending the QF Executive so vigourously could come up with some points on what exactly they have done to better the place !
I thought i would do a google search to see what were the achievements of the Qantas management team but could find nothing, though i did find this interesting story on Qantas Sucks World - Customer complaints (http://www.qantassucksworld.com/index.html)
It is a bit old but a good warning of things to come:
Government Safety Audit gives Qantas 15 safety correction notices
From: The Australian (more at: The Australian | The Australian Homepage | TheAustralian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au)) Posted: June 6, 2009

A review of the way Qantas maintains individual aircraft has resulted in about 15 requests for corrective action
from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. CASA undertook the "tail audit" in the wake of a series of incidents
that included a mid-air oxygen bottle explosion that blew a hole in the side of jumbo jet and a computer glitch
that sent an Airbus jet on wild ride and prompted an embarrassing maintenance review that last year that
found Qantas was not meeting its own performance benchmarks. CASA deputy chief executive operations
Mick Quinn told a Senate hearing last week that "During this process we identified a number of areas we
believed required some attention and we have issued approximately 15 -- I think 13 to date on a 737 and 767
-- requests for corrective action." Mr. Quinn said he could not comment on how many requests for corrective
action had been issued on the 747 because it was incomplete.

(my bold)

mmciau
10th Dec 2010, 22:35
Sunfish,

Your comments and observations are very true.

I was a member of the Commonwealth APS and during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the 'management' of the APS purged all the lower ranks of the experienced Public Servants through 'voluntary redundancy' by offering packages to leave the service.

On one occasion, I witnessed the equivalent of over "1000 man-years of rat cunning labour force program administration" being wiped from the APS books.

In my view, the APS has never ecovered from this 'purging' that has occured.

All the technical experts that were in Transport (air, land and sea) were terminated.



Mike

Redstone
11th Dec 2010, 01:15
Sunfish, you are correct. I suspect thatif you published your methodology it would not make its way to the required reading list at business school, not trendy or "funky" enough. But it is what we call on the hangar floor as "common dog [email protected]#k" however common sense is not all that common any more.

If you are a student of history and the ADF in particular there is a recuring theme in the Australian Army in all theatres of war in that they have always seemed to be able to find the "right bloke at the right time". I believe the philosophy in the Army was quite simple, it was not about searching out the right people, it was all about keeping the "$hit out", if that makes any sense.

Lodown
11th Dec 2010, 01:33
Sunfish is correct and it's good practice for competent change managers to identify core skills when cutting costs. It works very well with the change managers who know what they are doing and have the experience with the organization. When you bring on a "professional" bookread manager with a shiny MBA and a gold tooth, who has read a few of the latest change management books in which it all sounds so easy to start by slashing 30%, then unless it's done correctly, you run the danger of doing just what Sunfish identifies. The good change managers are few and far between and worth every penny.

Shark Patrol
11th Dec 2010, 01:53
Leaders also have to lead by example, if they can't or don't then your business will wither and die.

And there, very neatly summarised, is the entire problem with QF management. Currently, the outfit is run like pre-revolutionary France - while the aristocrats (managers) eat cake (remember that 11 million for six months "work"), the peasants (everybody else) starve (3% ad infinitum).

hotnhigh
11th Dec 2010, 02:25
Great post sunfish and equally well put shark patrol.
Sadly the entire events over the last few months have shown that the qantas board and management have no competence when it comes to rectifying a perilous situation.
Actions speak louder than words and even the words used by the chairman and ceo don't cut it.
How many times has Joyce said "safety is our top priority?" Well, how many companies in Australia that offer service to the paying customer would not have that belief?
The inaction to be upfront with the underlying issues remain, and the us versus them mentality, continues unabated, in fact sentiment probably even worsened in the last few weeks, as management continue the push to piss everyone off.
Engineers, pilots, cabincrew, all important elements to a successful out come, are at loggerheads with qantas management continually because they don't believe in their strategies and can see the airline being steered headlong into a brick wall.
One has to ask what is the purpose of the toxic relationship between unions representing loyal employees and qantas?
The notion that Qantas management are building two successful brands has been shown to be a frace in the last few months as the mangy roo struggles to stay alive. From my point, it seems the organisational changes that have taken place since the dixon era began are now bearing fruit and the fruit is rancid.
Jetstar may be successful in what it does but Qantas is suffering from severe neglect and abuse at the hand of those at the top.
Most shop front staff probably had a burning desire to work for qantas for a long time prior to joining qantas. Unfortunately that passion and belief in what qantas could and should be is not shared by those running the show.
...............................:ugh:
I look forward to travelling to sydney on the 19 year old 767, to be flown to joberg in the 20 year old 747. At least it may be ontime and the state of the entertainment system will work well and accompany the extremely confortable sky bed with the impressive underlay. The food will be delightful, and i will have my choice of meals and wines and the flight attendants will have plenty of spare time on their hands to provide me with a level of customer service that I should expect when i pay to fly on the premium airline, qantas. NOT!

Worrals in the wilds
11th Dec 2010, 03:22
Great post Sunfish.
I also think that the lack of respect that the worker group and management group have for each other is a huge factor in toxic workplaces. Both groups are necessary in a successful business, but when they each despise and distrust each other the battle becomes more important than achieving the business goal.

If the managers are too arrogant and distrustful to listen to the workers about training, equipment etc, they are destined to make poor decisions and lose valuable people, whether through dissatisfaction or poorly planned redundancy drives. A senior manager cannot possibly understand every piece of equipment in a company and nor is it his job to do so, so how can he make informed decisions without seeking and trusting the advice of his technical experts?

In a productive company the managers and workers don't always agree or even like each other very much, but in general both sides have faith in the other group's knowledge and their ability to keep the show on the road, and both sides trust the information given to them by the other in the endless compromise game of 'we really need this equipment', versus 'we really can't afford it this year'. Without sensible and honest discussion about how great the need is (and how low the cash is), it's inevitable that bad decisions will be made. From the outside looking in, that seems to be what's happened at Qantas, particularly with engineering matters.

Lodown
11th Dec 2010, 04:47
Maybe not a good example to use Google Sunfish. Google and Rackspace are like licenses to print money. Considering the normal lifespan of a tech company is something like 7 years, these guys are just going onward and upward. Experience probably doesn't matter so much in these companies as the technology is about the same age as the employees.

Jetro6UL
11th Dec 2010, 05:28
Why does Joyce hate Qantas so much?

Hey, why should Joyce be any different to the rest of us??

Sunfish
11th Dec 2010, 19:56
Lodown:

Maybe not a good example to use Google Sunfish. Google and Rackspace are like licenses to print money. Considering the normal lifespan of a tech company is something like 7 years, these guys are just going onward and upward. Experience probably doesn't matter so much in these companies as the technology is about the same age as the employees.

With respect Lodown, you make my point for me.......

The reason that tech companies only last Seven years or so, and then fold or get merged, often leaving investors high and dry, is precisely because they remain a monoculture of Twenty somethings or Thirty somethings, and make the business mistakes common to those age groups.

There is no reason Google shouldn't last a hundred years or more if it manages itself properly and reinvents itself at suitable intervals. For example Shell Petroleum (Royal Dutch Shell) was founded in 1907.


Business mistakes for youngsters?

- Reach exceeding grasp.

- "This boom will go on forever"


For the middle aged?

- Lets diversify!

- Lets reorganise!


For the elderly?

- We've always done it like that!

- Let's modernise by buying some young tech companies!

TIMA9X
12th Dec 2010, 15:00
Hey, why should Joyce be any different to the rest of us??Interesting press release here
Qantas managers head for the exit (http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-managers-head-for-the-exit-20101212-18u2u.html)
Qantas managers head for the exit

The turnover in senior managers at Qantas, many of whom have 20 or 30 years of service, has intensified over the past year and is seen as a blow to its key long-haul operations.His appointment comes several months after Virgin Blue poached two other Qantas executives, Will Owens and Jane McKeon, as the heads of government relations and yield management respectively.Qantas has poached Virgin Blue's former head of government relations, Tony Wheelens. He left the airline on Friday to become a government relations manager at Qantas, reporting to Rob Wood, the head of government and international relations.David Epstein, Qantas's chief spin doctor and government relations boss, will also leave this month after two years at the airline to take up a role as the head of public affairs at BHP Billiton.
The recent departures follow a big overhaul of Qantas's senior management six months after Alan Joyce took the reins in late 2008, including the axing of 90 senior management roles.
Mr Joyce is regarded as having a preference for changing the roles of individual managers frequently instead of clocking up years of experience in specialist positions.
''Alan is very keen on the fact that when he was at [the Irish airline] Aer Lingus he was moved through all different areas,'' one said.
But the former boss of Jetstar is also seen as being sensitive to not installing too many of his former managers at that low-cost airline in some of the top roles at its full-service parent, Qantas. My bold.

Make what you like from the above summary now in the mainstream press - there seems to be a pattern forming under AJs tenure.

skybed
12th Dec 2010, 22:29
the pattern for several month. new managers moving into new areas and no f..... idea whats going on. result nothing gets done, too scared to make a decision:ugh:

highland cow
13th Dec 2010, 00:19
Its very interesting that most of these managers except for JB are ex Australian Airlines. If some of you may remember when QF was taken over by TN, the "tiny but perfectly formed Thunderbird" removed the vast majority of QF management at most levels and replaced them with TN people. The only one of note they didn't have the guts to remove was the Safety Manager, for obvious reasons. I suppose Joyce will replace them with ex REX people to keep up the tradition.

blow.n.gasket
13th Dec 2010, 07:01
Might be time for author Matthew Benns to do an updated version of his book "The Men Who Killed Qantas?

another superlame
13th Dec 2010, 08:45
Good post Sunfish.

Ask around about the crews sent o/s to to the A380 work recently. I believe that it was very close to that crew structure. Young guys doing the hard yakka, a few older guys with an older head and then the senior who ties it all together.

But when base maintenance send a crew away to change an engine it is all chiefs and no workers.

Maybe change is a good thing

The Kelpie
13th Dec 2010, 09:27
I hope uncle Alan is watching undercover boss tonight and it makes him realize how disconnected he is from the business!

Eureka Pete
14th Dec 2010, 06:08
Perhaps Uncle Alan will make a surprise visit and turn up on SYD ramp in a shi#ter truck and pump some business class poo ?
And I might win Oz Lotto tonight but I doubt it.

I wonder about that Undercover Boss after I watched last nights episode.He fronts up for work and hasn't shaved plus no EP training for a F/A.The marshalling in of the aircraft had me wondering as well.

Having someone turn up for work with a TV crew behind you and not trying too hard in the grooming department for a customer service position makes me wonder if it is kosher at all and just not a paid advert for a business.

This entire reality TV thing is a joke.

27/09
14th Dec 2010, 08:31
This entire reality TV thing is a joke.

A bit off topic, however I couldn't agree more. It's got to be fcuking cheap to make. Most of the "Stars" are free or in some cases probably paying to take part. Come to think of it, it's a bit like how some airlines employ their junior pilots I guess. :E

RedTBar
15th Dec 2010, 00:52
I don't think AJ or even GD hates QF.

I think it is more a matter of taking the easier management path.

Instead of improving QF as a product they are taking the minimalist sort of viewpoint and pushing the J* brand giving the punters less for less.

I don't agree with it or like it but this is like a snowball rolling downhill picking up speed and mass.

Can anyone or anything stop it now that it has started.:(

schlong hauler
15th Dec 2010, 03:19
Wait and see the profit down grade from J*. This year, from what I have been told by some one very senior and in the know, is that the heavy maintenance costs for the A320 will be realised and there is no where to hide it within the Qantas group. Told 50 mill off the top for maintenance. Apparently this is where the 737 is cheaper to operate over the long term going forward. Good phrase. Got it from Julia Joyce!

breakfastburrito
15th Dec 2010, 04:28
Schlong Hauler, this was known right from the start. A colleague had some accountants from the evaluation team in the jumpseat explaining this when the aircraft decision was being taken The accountants knew the A320 was cheaper for the first two years compared to B737, then become more expensive to operate due to higher maintenance costs. This has been baked into the cake from the start.

What The
15th Dec 2010, 10:52
What will happen, however, is any penalty payments made by Boeing for the 787 delay will be credited to Jetstar. This is despite, according to sources, the original payment/deposit being made from QANTAS' account. This may, or may not, balance the books.

Rest assured. Jetstar WILL make a profit because it has to to satisfy the requirements of:


Attack Virgin.
Stop any other operator from setting up. (well there is tiger)
Attack the union stronghold in QANTAS.

Keg
15th Dec 2010, 10:57
...any penalty payments made by Boeing for the 787 delay will be credited to Jetstar.

Whilst the actual costs associated with the delay are borne by mainline because they have to keep operating the 767 for far longer than originally intended. A nice double whammy to keep up the charade. :ugh:

Normasars
15th Dec 2010, 11:08
Jeeeesus KEG, even you the eternal optomist, are starting to sound rather sarcastic about said "charade", that is the profitibility of onestar :ok:

Keg
15th Dec 2010, 15:22
Lol. An optimist I may be but that doesn't stop me from being a realist when the evidence points in that direction. It's pointed that way with J* from the outset.

J* was a necessity for the QF group, I just would have liked for it to have been done 'honestly' also.

teresa green
16th Dec 2010, 01:44
He is to busy chatting up Oprah right now. He appears to be in every photo, oh well, I quite like the lady, at least she has a go.

schlong hauler
16th Dec 2010, 20:47
Breaky Burrito. According to my source, who I can't reveal but is right in the thick of it, is that the heavy maintenance costs for the A320 will be borne by J* this financial year and it will come off their bottom line. He said approx 50 mill.You're right about the long term cost differential however it does not change the fact of a major profit downgrade for J*. The most interesting fact was that the costs can't be apportioned to Qantas.

gobbledock
30th Dec 2010, 11:48
Breaky Burrito. According to my source, who I can't reveal but is right in the thick of it, is that the heavy maintenance costs for the A320 will be borne by J* this financial year and it will come off their bottom line. He said approx 50 mill.You're right about the long term cost differential however it does not change the fact of a major profit downgrade for J*. The most interesting fact was that the costs can't be apportioned to Qantas.
My source confirms this info as well.

I always find some truth in the adage 'rats deserting the ship'. In the case of Qantas you only need to look at the volume of managers that have hightailed it in the past 8 months to get an idea of the 'inner health' of the organisation and commonsense tells you all is not well.

A lot of the issues at QF stem from short term decisions made by managers who 'live for today and don't think about tomorrow'. 8 years of this has come to a head, pure and simple. You can't make short term moves that will be a success for 2 years but then turn into a loss after the honeymoon period has ended. This is part of their problem, they have been doing this for so long and it has caught up with them.

QF has decimated it's workforce by giving technical experience in all fields the flick, inadequately oversighting/managing outsouced business sections, and the biggest mistake of all (albeit a complex problem) is - Allowing it's reputation for safety and service implode into a brown steaming mess. Senior people have clearly misunderstood and completely overlooked 2 key areas of revenue. Safety sells seats and service sells seats.

The level of arrogance and unjustifiable salaries is a further display of either stupidity or pure greed, maybe both. I find it amazing that if (by miracle) an Australian banking institute has a profit downgrade or comes up short of the shareholders expectations either the CEO's and CFO's heads role, or in the least they have their salaries cut and bonuses removed...Not in avaiation, a loss of profit and profit downgrade results in payrises, fat bonuses and other wallet filling schemes.
Then again anybody investing their money into airlines that operate in a high risk environment with thin margins deserves to watch the CEO's racking up millions as a reward for destroying the company.

Qantas may have ridden out the 'GFC' of 2008-2010 which saw around $900 000 000 disapear in a nanosecond but you have to remember that was only the first bubble to burst. Wait til the mother of all bubbles bursts....