Plane Talking - Ben Sandilands on the money yet again!

[Popgun]

It might be a public holiday, but Ben has obviously not been drinking too many cleansing ales. He has his finger right on the pulse...as usual.


Some big ‘Mayday’ calls are coming

April 25, 2011 – 1:05 pm, by Ben Sandilands


In terms of action rather than emergencies, there are some big May Day calls coming from Australian airlines next month.

On May 4, the Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety standards is due to report, possibly on the same day that Virgin Australia confirms that it will be Virgin Australia (while keeping V Australia as its integrated international brand).

To a similar timetable REX or Regional Express will most likely carry through its foreshadowed intention to reduce its services, perhaps by as much as 30 per cent in terms of flights. Most likely the ATSB will choose that same day to issue its final report into the scandalous ditching near Norfolk Island on November 19, 2009, of an air ambulance flown by Pel-Air, owned by REX’s owners.

In May there should be no doubt that Tiger will have to shape up or ship out.

And unless Qantas changes its constant posturing about how it is all the fault of labor not management that it can’t turn a decent dollar in this country, it is clearly highly likely to suffer a self fulfilling damaging dispute with the pilots and other parts of its work force.

The only thing not highly likely to occur next month will be further details about where a totally independent panel recommends Sydney put its second airport.

Of course, leaks do happen. It might even do the blindingly obvious, and recommend that Sydney’s second airport actually be in Sydney, but, we’ll see. It is about time a truly independent committee decided to remedy rather than justify a government policy disaster.

The Senate inquiry


Given the non-partisan unanimity of intense engagement between the members of the committee with the issues raised in this inquiry, it is reasonable to expect it will deliver a very well argued set of recommendations that will tighten up the slack in pilot training programs and some deficiencies in how safety issues are reported and investigated.

This was the first major Senate inquiry of any description where the press was scooped repeatedly by the members, in particular the chairman Senator Bill Heffernan and the inquiry instigator, Senator Nick Xenophon, who broke stories about stick shaker incidents on Qantaslink turbo-props, and a Jetstar A330 that nearly landed wheels up at Singapore Airport, and whose scrutiny of the Jetstar NZ Cadet Pilot scheme lead to a U-turn by Jetstar that would have filled the chunder bags on any of its services in an instant had it occurred on a regular flight.

Virgin calls Australia home


Comments already made by Virgin Blue CEO John Borghetti make it clear that every time Qantas bleats about how it can’t make money out of being Australian he is going to emphasise that Virgin is Australian.

The contrast is already painful. Qantas sees its future as being less Australian, to wit, the faux-Qantas Jetconnect nonsense and the basing of Australian registered A330s and eventually Boeing 787s in Singapore under Singaporean labor laws, and less full service, to wit the Jetstar play. In return it is up against an operation which says it can be higher in quality and lower in cost than Qantas, and be more Australian.

The emphasis by Qantas on how it will be harmed by a future industrial settlement doesn’t really address the issue as to why it is failing to pay its shareholders, satisfy its customers, or participate in the post GFC recoveries enjoyed by major competitors. Could it just be that it is being poorly managed, or that the plot, whatever it is, has been lost?

REX and regional realities


No-one should be in any doubt that REX has been ultra successful in making small SAAB 340 services work effectively to country towns including some where it has survived and prospered against the larger turbo props of Qantaslink and even A320 and E-70 services. It is very vulnerable however to even a small loss in passenger numbers as it tries to recover rising fuel costs, and other carriers are prepared to put a much higher value on its pilots than it does, or can, which is also its problem in the good times.

The clear signals it has sent that it will respond to these realities by cutting routes is very painful for everyone, except perhaps Sydney Airport, which sees access by slower and smaller aircraft as taking up slots that can be used by far larger jets bringing in much more revenue. In fact Sydney Airport sees no future for airliners of less than 72 seats capacity in the next 10-15 years.

REX’s SAABs are no longer in production. There is no 34 seat replacement for the design currently realistically available now or in the foreseeable future. How and where REX sees itself as going is thus an important issue, unless it is to go into history.

Tiger trapped


Even if the reasonable assumption is made that Tiger completely satisfies all of the concerns that leads to CASA issuing a show cause to the carrier late last month, a management that allowed such a situation to arise is unlikely to survive.

It is inconceivable that a well run airline can accumulate so much by way of problems over a period of months without taking the correct action that would have prevented CASA from going to the step immediately below actually grounding the airline.

This means there will either be significant changes in Tiger, or it will suffer an even more damaging encounter with the safety regulator.

Its unreliability of service is also an issue in a sophisticated market. Australian are used to flying. It doesn’t matter how cheap the fare being offered may be if the perception is that passengers can’t assume they will even takeoff on the day they intended to fly.

Without pricing power in the domestic market, one has to ask what continuing purpose Tiger has in Australia.

We, as an industry, are extremely fortunate to have such a capable journalist reporting the facts in a timely, independent manner.

My favourite part of the article uses some classic aussie vernacular:

and whose scrutiny of the Jetstar NZ Cadet Pilot scheme lead to a U-turn by Jetstar that would have filled the chunder bags on any of its services in an instant had it occurred on a regular flight.

PURE GOLD!

Cheers Ben. On this very special of Aussie days, I tip my hat to you Mr Sandilands. You are a special breed of Aussie journo.

PG

[Mr. Hat]

A massive 12 months ahead indeed. I think Australian Aviation will look very different this time next year. This point in time in my opinion is a huge turning point for the industry and Mr Sandilands sums it up nicely. So many factors at play.

[ButFli]

This article is full of predictions for the future. I'm curious to know how Ben Sandilands can be "right on the money" if none of these predictions have come to fruition yet.

[TIMA9X]

I tip my hat to you Mr Sandilands. You are a special breed of Aussie journo. I second that! Sends a strong message to the shareholders. :sad:

I liked,

The emphasis by Qantas on how it will be harmed by a future industrial settlement doesn’t really address the issue as to why it is failing to pay its shareholders, satisfy its customers, or participate in the post GFC recoveries enjoyed by major competitors. Could it just be that it is being poorly managed, or that the plot, whatever it is, has been lost?As I see it, this is the big picture quote, and "Spot On" the money!

and,

And unless Qantas changes its constant posturing about how it is all the fault of labor not management that it can’t turn a decent dollar in this country, it is clearly highly likely to suffer a self fulfilling damaging dispute with the pilots and other parts of its work force.
What I have always believed as well, this tactic has been going on since the early GD years, in my view, copied from the BA management IR bible at about that time as well. So, having read Ben's piece, the question did cross my mind, what is the plot AJ?

[unionist1974]

Since was denied first class upgrades by a certain CEO back in the 90's this person has had an agenda to damage wherevere he could . Judge for yourself .could never get over the snub back to cattle class . Felt should have been up the front , drinking the bubbly . Reports and articles have been biased ever since . Credibility None

[SIUYA]

TIMA9X asked:

So, having read Ben's piece, the question did cross my mind, what is the plot AJ?

Sorry TIMA9X, but at the moment AJ's clearly unable to answer that I think, because it's totally obvious that he's completely lost it. :ok:

[IAW]

unionist, every time I read one your posts I wonder if you are for real. Plane Talking is a well written blog and Sandilands isn't afraid to question the airlines whilst other journos just rewrite the press release and call it a day.

[hongkongfooey]

It is inconceivable that a well run airline can accumulate so much by way of problems over a period of months without taking the correct action that would have prevented CASA from going to the step immediately below actually grounding the airline

Can't wait for the Gen Y response to this one :}

[33 Disengage]

Don't worry about onionist1974. He claims the only reason the A380 QF32 returned to SIN was because thay had left the Krug behind.

[Millet Fanger]

Unionist (Ian), I thought you were told not to divulge any information gained during your IR consultations with QF management. You are leaving Qantas exposed by your actions.

[Xcel]

Hongkongfooey

what sort of Gen Y response do you expect? Got nothing to do with the gen Y'ers really. Shouldn't it be the boomers steering this one?

[mcgrath50]

Xcel,

You should know by now if it's not the terrorists to blame, it is Gen Y :mad:

[psycho joe]

Quote:
It is inconceivable that a well run airline can accumulate so much by way of problems over a period of months without taking the correct action that would have prevented CASA from going to the step immediately below actually grounding the airline

Can't wait for the Gen Y response to this one


Donald Duck reckons that they're ok :ok:

[ejectx3]

Unionist I usually refrain from personal attacks but seriously you have no idea.

Yes I am a pilot and love to hear journos sing the same song that I am, but your slamming of Sandilands is so obviously just baiting the pilots, or a wind up , or possibly you are just a half wit, that any credibility you had is gone.

Anyone, no matter what side they are on can see he is a fair and balanced observer of aviation matters in Australia and to state otherwise is both childish and...frankly...plain moronic.

[Ngineer]

We, as an industry, are extremely fortunate to have such a capable journalist reporting the facts in a timely, independent manner.



:ok:Popgun.
Isn't that the truth.

The many things wrong with this company, that each of us see each day, is it any wonder that we struggle to make a buck.

From good paying customers that are turned away purely to spite staff, to the countless levels of mangers, consultants and baby faced HR uni-graduates trying to direct well trained and experienced employees in the wrong direction.

I look at the Jetstar operation now being serviced by countless different ground-staff organisations and think to myself - didn't the Qantas group use to do this all in-house? Now we are paying extra cash to a third party to do all this work (that we could be doing for nothing!!!). The stupidy escapes comprehension.

[gobbledock]

Donald Duck reckons that they're ok :ok:
That's gold.....

As a side point, I agree with what Ben is saying totally, but realisticaly isn't he just re-stating pretty much what we already know ??

[Sunfish]

"Unionist1974" has been exposed elsewhere as a Qantas management troll. He can be ignored.

[Inbound On Descent]

As a side point, I agree with what Ben is saying totally, but realisticaly isn't he just re-stating pretty much what we already know ??

Gobbledock, we "insiders" may already know, but I think the point is that Sandilands presents facts and opinions to the wider earthling community about matters aviation like few others in his game do.

Cheers,

Inbound. :ok:

[DutchRoll]

Can't wait for the Gen Y response to this one
Not quite sure what "Gen Y" have to do with it.

I kinda get sick of the "Gen X, Gen Y, Me generation" arguments. The "Me" generation walked out of Africa many thousands of years ago and are alive and well. They're called "modern humans" in anthropological terms.

[D Delay-Hay]

When you use third party organisations, you can shift all the blame for anything that goes wrong to them.

[Tutaewera]

Afraid not. No airline can absolve itself from legal responsibilities by outsourcing. The law is pretty plain on that.

Sandilands is perhaps getting better, although he still occassionally gets the technical specifics wrong. (Not surprising as he isn't a subject matter expert, etc). I remember him writing a piece on the JQ botched G/A saying that JQ had altered their AFM, when it fact it was the SOP that was altered. he didn't seem to understand the difference between flight manuals (ie FCOM vs AFM etc).

[Roller Merlin]

Agree that we are at a turning point, especially re senate enquiry outcomes. If new regulation comes from a bill drafted around the evidence presented so far, we may all be able to sleep better, hopefully at night and not at flight levels.

The period of pressure-testing and then breeching regulations by LCC, seemingly allowed due to perceptions of special relationships, is over. CASA has been exposed napping in oversight of the majors and will no doubt act far more swiftly to cover the Minister's backside. Reporting protocols to ATSB have been exposed as inadequate. Safety departments will likely get regulated substance. Foreigners should not be working here without proper approvals and IR laws might get a boost. Lets hope that the big end of town decides not to fight to water down this bill behind closed doors.

[breakfastburrito]

Lets hope that the big end of town decides not to fight this bill behind closed doors.
They will, vigorously, of that you can be assured. Modern crony capitalism requires corrupt political & bureaucratic processes. Hope and "fair play" cannot compete.

[Greedy]

And again the next day.
Capt X

[FlareArmed]

Ben performs an important role in our industry: untouchable journalism.

The Airlines advertising spend is huge; the editorial influence is clear. Their ability to pamper and manipulate politicians is well documented in PPRune – I'm referring to the shenanigans in the Chairman's Lounge: "chance" meetings, iPad gifts, upgrades denied to the rest of us and so forth.

Ben cuts to the chase, and although not many stories reach mainstream media, I hope some influential critical thinkers – such as Senator X – read Ben's blog, because it gives clear perspective.

There are a few members of PPRune hostile towards Ben but it seems obvious to me they are from the Dark Side pretending to be one of the lads.

[unionist1974]

How gullible are you ? This guy writes a few articles that suit your view point,he is a hero . Check what he wrote back in the early nineties and back in the CC dispute of the 80s. guess who he favoured then , oh of course the piper that paid the tune.

[mcgrath50]

Sorry unionist? Who is paying Ben this time? The only side with the ability to do that is the airlines, and he is most certainly not on their side.

Maybe he sang a different tune in the past, but at the moment he is singing from our hymn book and while that is happening we should support him!

[Sunfish]

Unionist1974:

Check what he wrote back in the early nineties and back in the CC dispute of the 80s. guess who he favoured then , oh of course the piper that paid the tune.

Trolling again. Why would an alleged engine mechanic know or care what Sandilands wrote back then about cabin crew?

Your disguise is wearing a little thin.

[hewlett]

Sunfish vs Unionist1974.My moneys on the fish.Unionist you have as much credibility as QF management.

[FlareArmed]

I don't think it's a case of being gullible. I read the transcript of the Senate hearings, and Ben reported the stuff that mainstream media – with their hands in the airlines pockets – would dare not report. I don't know about the 90s, but the results are certainly there now.

[ferris]

I heard that Sandilands wrote for Hitler, eats babies and farts in church. Should make it so much easier to refute what he writes, shouldn't it unionist? I look forward to your crushing rebuttal; Qantas is well managed etc.

[patienceboy]

You should know by now if it's not the terrorists to blame, it is Gen Y :mad:

Whilst Gen Y could be blamed for all of the world’s problems until only very recently – the new players on the block are reportedly Gen Z. The oldest of Gen Z are 20 years of age and are soon to wreak havoc in a workplace near you. Don’t worry too much Gen Z, Gen Alpha* are being bred as we speak and will be here to take the flack for you in a short 19 years time.

Generation Z - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z)

*Wikipedia suggested name for the presently unnamed generation born from 2010 onwards.

[unionist1974]

Time will tell! Now for the apologists.

[unionist1974]

Sunfish , coz I was a trade unionist then and am now and won,t be hoodwinked by you johnny cum latelys

[Ken Borough]

Why would anyone have supported the CC during their various disputes and strikes in the 1980s? CC managed to get support from many of the ground staff unions over the issue of Staff Labour only to resume work after a couple of days strike and turn their collective backs on the ground staff who were out for quite a few weeks. The FSAA (or whatever it wath called) deserved censure then, while history has not revealed anything to change this view. Unless one is a Revisionist.

[GENKI]

The last Cabin Crew Strike internationally was in 1981 over the introduction of the 747-SP aircraft and i believe it was about inadequate crew rest onboard and fatigue management issues but i stand to be corrected.

All of the Union officials that were involved in that dispute have gone the way of the dodo. To suggest that the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons is a little rich.

current crew have fought battles over offshoring of crew since 1997 and have reached an agreement to at least CAP the number of overseas crew to 25%.

You can't even have an agreement under the current laws that contains such a cap so it relies on the hand shake deal which the company has honoured.

If the law changes i am sure that Cabin crew would love to have the cap placed into an enforceable agreement but that's only likely to happen if a deal suits both parties.

Unions can no longer work together with any form of action as secondary boycotts are illegal and unions that even threaten to take action in support of another union can be sued including officials and members taking part.

Time to wake up guys the world has changed.

remember the time when all the unions used to work together under the ACTU and do one EBA together...it wasn't cabin crew that broke up that solidarity it was the TWU who were the first to walk away from collective strength and do their own deal....cabin crew have been going it alone for years

[gobbledock]

Why would anyone have supported the CC during their various disputes and strikes in the 1980s? CC managed to get support from many of the ground staff unions over the issue of Staff Labour only to resume work after a couple of days strike and turn their collective backs on the ground staff who were out for quite a few weeks. The FSAA (or whatever it wath called) deserved censure then, while history has not revealed anything to change this view. Unless one is a Revisionist.

What Ken is trying to say is this - "I am a lover of management and I am a mangement footstool. I will remain loyal to my Qantas Führer and loyaly obey all his commands and forever shun those mischievous unions. Long live management".

[Sunfish]

Management normally gets the unions it deserves.

I have no wish to revisit the highly unionised days of the past. I have plenty of my own stories of mind bogglingly vicious and counter productive union behaviour.

However I also remember some pretty vicious and counter productive management behaviours....

The earliest was queuing in the rain with my punch card waiting to clock off while the managers drove past us and out the gates of the Ammo factory at Footscray every night.

Then there was the unionised @#%$ that cost me a trip to one of the Kangaroo exercises simply because the paint shop wouldn't accept some aircraft sheet metal for painting if it was delivered by hand...it had to be delivered by "the transport section" which added Two days to a fifty yard journey and a twenty minute job at CAC.

[LeadSled]

Sandilands is perhaps getting better, although he still occasionally gets the technical specifics wrong. (Not surprising as he isn't a subject matter expert, etc). I remember him writing a piece on the JQ botched G/A saying that JQ had altered their AFM, when it fact it was the SOP that was altered. he didn't seem to understand the difference between flight manuals (ie FCOM vs AFM etc).

Tut,
Ben does understand the difference, including the legal FACT that, if the FCOM differs from the AFM with regard to a procedure, the FCOM is wrong, see CAR 138 and CASR 21-35.

The AFM prevails, period, has done since mid-1998, when CASRs 21-35 went into place. Lots of people in CASA and the industry "professionals" are very slow learners, with many pre 1998 FCOMs (or equivalent) remaining unamended to this day.

If you want to vary procedures from the AFM (ie; in the FCOM) you need the approval of the Type Certificate holder, and, effectively, the NAA of the state of certification.

Increasingly, CASA is pushing out paperwork to emphasize this legal situation, brought forcibly to its attention by Ben Sandilands and the Senate inquiry.

Tootle pip!!

[Tutaewera]

"Ben does understand the difference, including the legal FACT that, if the FCOM differs from the AFM with regard to a procedure, the FCOM is wrong, see CAR 138 and CASR 21-35."

Pity then, that there are no G/A SOP's in the Airbus AFM eh... In modern transport jets it is effectively a statuary document required for the ships library, rarely (if ever) used by crews. (I haven't seen an AFM with comprehensive operating procedures since GA / turbo prop days, is that the category of aircraft you are thinking of?).

I was not fussed myself, its nice to see a Journo take some interest in technical matters within aviation. Most don't have a clue nor care if they get it wrong.

[runesta]

some of the idiots on this forum have put too much faith on the senate enquiry. You will be disappointed. At the end of the day it will achieve very little because it involves politicians with vested interests and red tape. Think about this: What will they gain and how many votes are they going to win by pursuing the matter?

[Lookleft]

Yes there are many idiots on this forum so well done for putting your handup. The Senate Inquiry has already produced changes so it has achieved some of its aim of looking at safety standards. The politicians vested interest is that they spend a lot of their time on aircraft and they want to know about any problems with an industry, that up until now, they thought was sound. What they have found is that Corporate greed is placing safety and sound operational practice a long way back in their order of priorities. Change won't happen tomorrow or next week but change there will be.

[Handbrake]

Letter from Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce

June 9, 2011 – 10:40 am, by Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/)


The CEO of the Qantas group Alan Joyce has responded to a report published in the Crikey subscriber bulletin on June 7, and later that day, in a slightly different version, in Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/07/qantas-belittles-itself-at-iata-while-singapore-airlines-and-virgin-australia-stitch-it-up/).
Dear Ben
It is clear that you do not agree with me about the nature of the challenges facing Qantas and the solutions to them (“Qantas to suffer as Virgin gets it on with Singapore Airlines”, 7 June 2011). While I am perfectly willing to accept and respond to criticism, I cannot agree with the premise of some of your arguments.
First, your claim that at IATA I was ‘surrounded’ by ‘much more successful airlines’ than Qantas is sensationalist. Qantas has been profitable every year since privatisation, including in each year of my time as CEO, and including at the height of the global financial crisis when airlines around the world were closing their doors, as well as winning many awards for product and service. You also overlook the fact that I took part in a very positive announcement at IATA, about Malaysia Airlines’ decision to join oneworld – a move that will strengthen the alliance’s position in Asia with considerable commercial benefits for Qantas.
Second, you say that Qantas has ‘failed to make a timely resolution of enterprise agreements that it has allowed to expire.’ You do not consider that the actions of the unions involved may be inimical to resolving these agreements, given that if accepted their claims would place an unsustainable cost burden on the airline and prevent us competing effectively with the carriers you name in your piece.
Third, you assert that Virgin Australia’s proposed alliance with Singapore Airlines would make it a “more Australian airline” than Qantas. I find this statement bizarre. Qantas employs 35,000 people, the vast majority of them in Australia, and its contribution to the national economy is far greater than that of Virgin Australia. In March 2011, Virgin Australia announced a profit downgrade, forecasting a financial year loss of $30 to $80 million. Its repositioning strategy, including alliances, remains unproven.
Fourth, you criticise Qantas’ new Dallas/Fort Worth service as ‘amateur hour’. Yet as recently as January this year you yourself listed the very good commercial and operational reasons for the launch of the route – not least an expanded partnership with American Airlines of the type you describe approvingly in your 7 June piece (as ‘globally branded airline rationalisation’). I have full confidence that our strategy in commencing Dallas/Fort Worth services was the correct one for Qantas.
These are just a few of the matters you have raised in your recent pieces, many of which you frame as personal criticisms of my leadership and that of the Qantas board and executive team. I would welcome the right of reply through publication of this letter in Crikey or Plane Talking.
Yours faithfully
ALAN JOYCE

[The Ancient Geek]

Here's your chance to make your point.


<YAWN> Yea right.

[Going Boeing]

Second, you say that Qantas has ‘failed to make a timely resolution of enterprise agreements that it has allowed to expire.’ You do not consider that the actions of the unions involved may be inimical to resolving these agreements, given that if accepted their claims would place an unsustainable cost burden on the airline and prevent us competing effectively with the carriers you name in your piece.

Perhaps Ben Sandilands should ask Alan Joyce why he has instructed his negotiating teams to filibuster instead of negotiate. AIPA has made many conciliatory amendments to its small number of claims but the QF team still refuses to discus the one pertinent issue - the offshoring of Qantas pilot jobs (thus circumventing the protections & benefits of Fair Work Australia).

[Ero-plano]

Ben Sandilands should be applauded for exposing this rouge, kamikaze CEO, he is one of few who is not fearful to tell it how it is. Sandilands has clearly gotten under the skin of one Alan Joyce who it seems doesn't like reading the negative press (I guess his staff don't either).
A special mention should also go to Olivia Worth for writting such an articulate reply on behalf of the QF CEO to the Sandilands article, then spending the time to post it on PPrune.
Maybe the QF managers should spend less time "leaking" info via all media outlets about staff and take care of shop.

[Sunfish]

Its "rogue" not "rouge".

Sorry for being a spelling Nazi.

[greenslopes]

No I think it is rouge, as in red faced suicidal CEO!

[waren9]

I hope Ben does publish that letter, if its not a proon wind up.

Each of the points Joyce makes are easily rebutted. Livy, honey, I give that effort a D.

edited to add: Oops, my mistake. It has been published. Ben did not need to rebut any of Joyces assertions. Some of his blog readers have done that for themselves very well eloquently indeed.

[airtags]

Seem to recall Keating doing a similar thing with Laws on the eve of his fall - Joyce has effectively become the powerless punter.

Q has for years kept Sandilands on the outer in favour of tortuous writers who rehash the spin.

The response itself is a sign that the reclusive paranoia has set in - a CEO with balls and leadership would simply give him a call - same thing applies to the nonsense sprouted by the ugly witch of pollie PR.

If Joyce actually was a leader he would have been prepared to front a forum of employees and answer the hard qestions. Instead he abuses the very people that are working to stuff his wallet with his undeserved bonus.

Crikey - don't publish his biased onse sided letter - let him front up for a interview and make sure you ask a few hard questions about the blow out on the re-config project and ask him to justify his performance bonus.
Close the interview with "when are you stepping down....rule 34 says he who denies and blames the employees already has the resignation drafted

AT

[Ken Borough]

let him front up for a interview and make sure you ask a few hard questions about the blow out on the re-config project and ask him to justify his performance bonus

AT,
That's not a bad idea but also let AJ enlighten the world about the Ts&Cs that many of the old farts enjoy. Like, was an overly generous company superannuation contribution meant to have ppl retire with several million dollars (to fund their several divorces :E)? Critics prattle on about a 9% contribution but what about all those in Div 1 of the Super Plan? Why not tell the public about the extraordinarily generous allowances and per diems that crew are paid and, in the case of captains, double the rate of First and Second Officers?

I could go on and on but I don't want to be persecuted to death by white ants who sometimes infest these fora. :ok:

[Keg]

...extraordinarily generous allowances and per diems that crew are paid and, in the case of captains, double the rate of First and Second Officers?

When someone has to call the office, send a faxed incident report, etc, etc it's generally the Captain that does all that stuff. That's why Captains get paid the extra ADTA and ODTA. Then again, if you knew we get paid that extra, you also know why. That you choose to with hold that info suggest that you're interested in spin ahead of truth.

[assasin8]

Funny how AJ didn't write a letter to correct all the inaccuracies in Joe Hilderbrandt's articles! As well as the "inaccuracies" by his spokesperson... Ah, to be sure, to be sure...

['holic]

So Ken, who do you see as the biggest threat ....... QF pilots or QF management?


(or Santa Claus)

[Ken Borough]

'holic,

That's a fair question! Management has a lot to answer for but there's not been a lot wrong with fleet planning. Where would QF be if the weren't delays with the A380 and B787, not to mention having 'lost' one A380 for a not inconsiderable period. AIPA and the FAAA have a heavy burden to carry as well: their head-in-the-sand attitude toward the continuation of 19th century work practices and Ts and Cs is astounding. If you ask me, if M'ment and the unionswere able to work constructively together, Jetstar would have never have seen the light of day. Therein is the rub.

That said, I have to admire Qantas staff and their dedication to the passengers as there is not a whiff of disengagement at the customer level. It's high time the erosion of confidence by staff stopped - the hand that feeds can only be bitten for so long.

[CaptCloudbuster]

AIPA and the FAAA have a heavy burden to carry as well: their head-in-the-sand attitude toward the continuation of 19th century work practices and Ts and Cs is astounding. If you ask me, if M'ment and the unionswere able to work constructively together, Jetstar would have never have seen the light of day

AIPA did work constructively with the introduction of Australian Airlines in Cairns. No heads in the sand there. Ask anyone who was there (both Management and Crew) how constructive that work environment was.

What was the end result for all that goodwill? AO closed down for Jetstar with the employees finding out via the front page of the Cairns Post.

[ron burgandy]

Ken,

Do you think it is wise "fleet planning" to pin all future growth hopes on 2 aircraft types that hadn't even left the drawing board when Qantas ordered them?

Sure order new type aircraft for strategic growth, but for tactical planning they should have gotten triples, there's no question. It was a tried, tested product, that fit their needs perfectly.

Fleet planning dropped the ball, missed a whole generation of aircraft, and are now seeking to blame everyone but themselves for the mistake.:ugh:

[mach2male]

Pilots who ARE management

[Sunfish]

So Ken Borough, you reckon "retiring with Seven Million dollars" is a bit rich?

After a career of how many years?

By the way, how much is the CEO retiring with and after how many years?

How "Generous" is the company contribution? Don't you understand that the "Seven Million Dollars" does not represent a cost to Qantas since it has been accumulated over Thirty plus years in a superannuation account?

It may even be possible that the Super account is profitable for Qantas since if it is a defined benefit scheme, any surplus belongs to the company.

...And what about the poor bugger who has a medical condition and has to stop flying at 49? He never saw the big money did he?

Here's a thought, why not go and recruit some pilots from Colgan, they are nice and cheap, and let them loose on your A380's along with 200 hour cadets. That is where you want to go isn't it?

Accident ID DCA09MA027 Mode Aviation occurred on February 12, 2009 in Clarence Center, NY United States Last Modified on May 11, 2009 09:05 Public Released on May 12, 2009 09:05 Total 135 document items (http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hitlist.cfm?docketID=47271&CFID=28219&CFTOKEN=32651961)



Quotes from the Cockpit Voice recorder transcript:




21:49:28.9
HOT-1
oh it's like it's a second career for me basically because I— I was able to
take that package with Verizon.

21:49:34.1
HOT-2
yeah.

21:49:35.5
HOT-1
but uh...you know it's...you know do I— g— at this point do I go to a major
and you know not be able to be there for very long.

21:49:48.8
HOT-2
yeah be an FO the rest of your life or...



......

22:03:21.2
HOT-1
man I— it's just all the pressure of all the the congestion and the the
volume and weather and anything and everything. the the controllers uh
they just it's like they uh constantly have their—.


.....

22:12:05.0
HOT-2
I've never seen icing conditions. I've never deiced. I've never seen any—
I've never experienced any of that. I don't want to have to experience that
and make those kinds of calls. you know I'dve freaked out. I'dve have like
seen this much ice and thought oh my gosh we were going to crash.









22:16:23.5
HOT-1
flaps fifteen before landing checklist.

22:16:26.0
CAM
[sound similar to flap handle movement]

22:16:26.6
HOT-2
uhhh.

22:16:27.4
CAM
[sound similar to stick shaker lasting 6.7 seconds]

22:16:27.7
HOT
[sound similar to autopilot disconnect horn repeats until end of recording]


22:16:27.9
CAM
[sound of click]

22:16:31.1
CAM
[sound similar to increase in engine power]

22:16:34.8
HOT-1
Jesus Christ.

22:16:35.4
CAM
[sound similar to stick shaker lasting until end of recording]

22:16:37.1
HOT-2
I put the flaps up.

22:16:40.2
CAM
[sound of two clicks]

22:16:42.2
HOT-1
[sound of grunt] *ther bear.

22:16:45.8
HOT-2
should the gear up?

22:16:46.8
HOT-1
gear up oh #.

22:16:50.1
CAM
[increase in ambient noise]

22:16:51.9
HOT-1
we're down.

22:16:51.9
CAM
[sound of thump]

22:16:52.0
HOT-2
we're [sound of scream]
22:16:53.9

END OF TRANSCRIPT
END OF RECORDING











General Error (http://dms.ntsb.gov/asp/filedownload.asp)

[assasin8]

Hey Ken, you must have gone to the same marketing school as our beloved Olivia? Seven million in super hey?

Gee, that's my third letter to payroll! First was they have been underpaying me, as I have been getting nowhere near my $ 350000...

Then there will be the $200000 pay rise... Had to give them a new account number, because my account was bulging at the seams!

Now I have to let them know I've been dudded on my super as well!

Must thank you for pointing that out...:ugh:

"to be sure, to be sure..."

[simsalabim]

Ahaaa .......it's the crew meal allowances and the super scheme that is the root cause of all the woes ! From this day on all pilot's and flight attendants should hand the envelopes back . This will save the airline and lift someone's KPI's to the point of achieving a nice little bonus.

Nothing to do with the following recent payments to the gang of six :
G Dixon $10.7 million for 5 months work 2008/9 making him the world's highest paid airline executive
P.Gregg $4.9 million for 3 months work
C.Storrie $1.6 million
A.Joyce $8.7million for 2 years work
Borghetti $10.7 million 2 years work
K.Browne $6.9 million (est) 2 years work

Stomach churning really.

[Ken Borough]

If you are going to quote me, get it right! While 'seven million dollars' is 'several million dollars', it's not what I posted. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

As for comparing a pilot's - any rank - benefit with that of the CEO of one of Australia's largest companies, I'll let that pass to the keeper. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Captain.Que]

How about you compare Joyce's salary with those of his peers?
You will find that he is paid more than any of the above.
There's the rub.Most Qantas execs are paid above their peers.
Management productivity and competence is below other comparable airlines but their remuneration is higher.
Qantas isnt an airline...its a train....a gravy train for management
BTW several means a number more two.Seven is more than two.You are not being misquoted

[assasin8]

Sorry Ken, "several" million it is... My bad! Still doesn't stop me putting that letter in though... So thanks again mate... :ok:

[rmcdonal]

BTW several means a number more two.Seven is more than two.You are not being misquoted
So the same way that "QF pilots make more than $100k" could also be read as "QF pilots are on $500k"? :=

[nitpicker330]

As much as we despised TT at Cx he was paid less than 2 million AUD per year and CX made 12 billion HKD last financial year and is in a period of expansion with lots of Boeing's and Airbus's on order. A bit different to the god's supposedly running QF!!

[ampclamp]

Ken, I'd back any experienced skipper having a crack at CEO duties for a year than Joyce flying any jet aircraft just once. One would get by, the other would be a disaster.
By all means lets discuss skill sets and their worth.
Incompetent CEO's can call in advisors and consultants in a crisis and promptly claim personal success and pass off blame for any failure. A pilot lives and dies by the sword.

[kellykelpie]

When someone has to call the office, send a faxed incident report, etc, etc it's generally the Captain that does all that stuff. That's why Captains get paid the extra ADTA and ODTA.


Keg, you have to be joking! Extra allowances so that you can send a fax - how many incidents a year are we talking?

[bobhoover]

fair cop ampclamp, I reckon an FO, even an SO could do the CEO's job for a year :p

[unseen]

Leadsled can you show us where the go around SOP is found in the A320 AFM?

There is no such procedure in the AFM as another poster states.

It is only in the FCOM.

Airbus does not care what you do to the FCOM SOP section.

You can change FCOM procedures without changing the AFM.

The AFM for all aircraft is very basic, the procedures do not look anything like those found in the FCOM or QRH.

[airdualbleedfault]

I wouldn't go as far as to say " Airbus don't care what you do to the FCOM ", they had plenty to say about CX/KAs bastardization of same, to the point where KA have ( smartly ) reverted to STD Airbus SOPs on quite a few things

[gobbledock]

Nothing to do with the following recent payments to the gang of six :
G Dixon $10.7 million for 5 months work 2008/9 making him the world's highest paid airline executive
P.Gregg $4.9 million for 3 months work
C.Storrie $1.6 million
A.Joyce $8.7million for 2 years work
Borghetti $10.7 million 2 years work
K.Browne $6.9 million (est) 2 years work

Not included in these figures are the consultancy payments that a number of the above mentioned individuals have and receive yearly. You won't see that in the annual reports as these payments and links are cleverly disguised, but dig and ye shall find.

Ken Ken Ken, as always your facts, figures, brain capacity and detail is flawed, innacurate and a load of tripe interspersed with shisen. You truly are a white ant (as you decribe) who has chewed on too many garden gnomes to be sure......now please be gone, to be sure.

[rodchucker]

Yet again this allegation of consultancy payments arises.

If it is true then "out" the details as this is the time for everyone to know. It would be a major PR disaster for those who manage this place (and I use the term very loosely) including the Board.

Would be interesting to see how they spin that.

Even for PP standards you should not make these allegations without either details or proof.

[Jack Ranga]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

Qantas and anybody else in the aviation business would view Crikey as definitely NOT mainstream media?

For Joyce to directly reply to Mr Sandilands shows that maybe he's getting a little worried/desperate?

Well done, Ben :ok: keep the pressure on the little bastard.

This EBA may deliver even more benefits to the employees of Qantas ;)

[denabol]

Some pressure was applied in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning too.

Flying into trouble (http://www.smh.com.au/business/flying-into-trouble-20110610-1fx09.html)

As well as Sandilands I'm seeing a better quality of reporting from Matt O'Sullivan, Elizabeth Knight and Adele Ferguson.

[gobbledock]

Yet again this allegation of consultancy payments arises.
If it is true then "out" the details as this is the time for everyone to know. It would be a major PR disaster for those who manage this place (and I use the term very loosely) including the Board.
Would be interesting to see how they spin that.
Even for PP standards you should not make these allegations without either details or proof.
No allegations. This is a 'rumour' remember. This is Pprune, not Ptruth !