Qantas and Its Appalling Brand Management

[captainrats]

Much is written and discussed about Qantas'woes.Poor choice of aircraft:Disengaged employees;offshoring;the cannibalising of mainline by Jetstar;shrinking network...the list goes on.
It becomes evident that there are two Qantas:One pre float and one post float.
Prior to float the brand was managed with kid gloves.It was innovative.Always ahead of the curve and always generated profit which ended up in the government coffers.The board was populated by governemnt appointees who left management to its own devices.Keith Hamilton,John Ward and John Menadue were superb as CEOs ,well respected by employees.
Qantas was a package that worked well.
Post float the brains of Qantas were deposed by Strong.He bought in his coterie from TAA/Australian.Enter Geoff Dixon,Strong's mate.An ex journo who worked for Ansett and migrated to TAA.A man in the twilight of his life and career.An unremarkable individual.A man without a skillset to run an international airline
The trashing of the brand began.The provoking of the workforce started.Employees became the enemy.
Australians dont generally manage brands well.Brands need to be re invented around every seven years.This requires a capital spend.The brand needs to be freshened up.
Qantas hasnt been freshened up for a decade or more.Several attempts were made but never really gained traction.The Qantas brand is very 20th Century.
We have had a changing of the guard.Dixon is gone and so is Jackson.Most of the senior executive have also departed.Lesley Grant is a noted survivor.She has achieved little.
So why has the 'script" (Sunfish's insight) remained the same? .Who is maintaining this script of provocation,divide and conquer,witholding of capital and brand neglect.
Why would anyone destroy such an iconic Australian brand?.
The governemnt must be involved at some level.They sit back and let it happen.If Qantas fails will it be bailed out?Will the government bail it out?.
Is there an agenda or is it just plain bloody stupidity.
No one has really come up with the definitive answer.I'll be damned if I can provide one.
The whole scenario makes no sense at all

[Ken Borough]

Since the float, the 'management' (a term I use loosely) had neither the courage nor foresight to reinvigorate Qantas. Instead, the easy path was taken and Jetstar created. The rest is history!

[gobbledock]

Since the float, the 'management' (a term I use loosely) had neither the courage nor foresight to reinvigorate Qantas. Instead, the easy path was taken and Jetstar created. The rest is history!


Very harsh words indeed from a management footstool and the President of the 'I Love Management Fanclub' !!
Ken, have management been neglecting to feed you your Shmacko's again ??

[WorthWhat]

If Qantas fails will it be bailed out? Will the government bail it out?.



Suspect not CR. Best you could hope for, is to be paid what your entitled to by the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS). It was established to assist employees who have lost their employment due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer and who are owed certain employee entitlements. GEERS covers capped unpaid wages, annual and long service leave, capped payment in lieu of notice and capped redundancy pay.

That said! Suggest all concerned do whatever needs to be done to keep Qantas solvent. A dead Roo, would be a :mad: disaster for shareholders and staff alike. Best not to think about it.

[Captain Sherm]

Captainrats,

Your post is an excellent summation of how many Australians feel....and not just about Qantas. I imagine many employees of other corporatised and privatised government businesses, banks, unions, etc etc etc all have the same feeling of bewilderment and a deep sense of unease at being able to get any sense of an answer to "How did this all happen? How did those folks do this to us? Did we have to worship at the throne of Second Best?".

While it will not give a complete answer have a look at this website John Ralston Saul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ralston_Saul) and read one or two of his books

Saul's work encapsulates a lot of the "How did this happen" stuff and really ought to be a compulsory read before we all vote.

It's not just about Qantas and not just about its employees....as a small example, take the people who fly Qantas, they're the ultimate QF stakeholders....many have that same deep sense of unease. Why does car parking at MEL cost more than the air fare? Why on earth is there still a curfew at SYD or a second airport? Why can every other major city in the world have a rail link to the airport but not MEL?

I suspect almost all of the voters have an inbuilt and deeply embedded understanding that its always better to do things properly the first time. That in war, flood and famine the people can be trusted to understand changing paradigms and adjust to new challenges. But it does require leadership.

Maybe as pilots we, perhaps like surgeons and soldiers, know that you cannot properly lead and command by platitudes, ideology, consultancies, slogans, bright ill-thought through ideas and self-interest. Perhaps we are cursed with a little more insight.

Sherm has always been a fan of Oscar Wilde and I might close by sharing this quote:

"A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world"

Sure there's something in there for all of us up at the pointy end. Have a look at Saul's work and let me know what you think.

[WoodenEye]

Should Qantas fail, god for bid, and some other airline, (together with associated supporting investors and the Government), does unexpectedly come to the rescue, don’t expect the Roo to be rebirthed as it is today.

What is going on at the present time with Qantas International is similar to what took place domestically in the US in the 80’s and 90’s after the industry was internally deregulated by President Carter and US airlines had to come to grips with costs determined by a regulated market structure.

In situations where employees remain quite well paid but shareholders then receive deregulated market rates of return, a realignment of shareholder and employee payoffs is inevitable and ultimately necessary for financial survival and job security. IMHO, real question right now ought to be; How to make the transition fairly?

Choices considered by US carriers such as DELTA, NWA & UAL, included, amongst other things:
· Using economic pressure to lower labour costs,
· Using cash flow for alternative business investment,
· Leveraged takeovers, and
· Spin off into LCC’s.

Sounds eerily familar doesn’t it.

In all cases, contested outcomes and plummeting share prices resulted in either widespread layoffs and subcontracting or a significant reduction in wages. In 1985, UAL Pilots took a 29 day strike to resist such pressures and eventually it was recognised in the US that both employees and shareholders had just claims. In the case of United, all employees (other than flight attendants) took a 15% wage reduction in exchange for 55% of United Airlines Stock.

[DEFCON4]

Highly unionised and profitable: I give you Southwest Airlines.
If Qantas was to adopt the same MO as Southwest it would have a shot at excellence.
Its a nice dream but wont happen.Not while the place is being run by narcissists who have an overblown sense of entitlement.
I thought Dixon was a turd.Clifford is the whole sewage farm

[Wally Mk2]

Gee I'm surprised this thread is still running, the Mods must be asleep!:E

Still QF I believe either has to change or it will come to an end as we know it. The latter hopefully never as after all any Co really is made up of real people & any Co's biggest assets (it's employees) can only take so much before they too fail like any piece of operating 'machinery'
The business world these days is ulgy & none more so than in aviation sadly.


Wmk2

[oicur12.again]

"Highly unionised and profitable: I give you Southwest Airlines."

I bet they complete the engagement surveys though.

The work ethic at Southwest would be almost impossible to foster in an airline like QF.

Could you imagine a QF skipper helping load bags while the FO greets and seats pax?

[Sunfish]

Oicur:

Could you imagine a QF skipper helping load bags while the FO greets and seats pax?

Mate, it's about empowerment if you have ever flown Southwest and watched them work you will understand this. Qantas staff had it once, but their authority and sense of ownership of their job has been progressively eroded by years of rotten management. They need to be given it back.

When you see a Five foot tall Southwest check in chick pull her gloves on and go out and struggle to plug in external power on an arriving 737 you immediately understand that you are watching a team. There are no demarcation disputes, it's their aircraft, airport and passengers. There are no excuses, they know that it is up to them to deliver a good customer experience, not some disembodied manager somewhere.

To put it another way they are not just "doing my job" like so many other workers.


Qantas had that same spirit in the 1970's and at least half the 1980's. I have never been prouder than watching a QF cabin crew at LHR around 1975 dealing with a highly apprehensive family of migrating Poms. Mum, Dad and Two little kids. Even before we were airborne the Cabin crew had sussed them out and were regaling them with advice, ideas and feeding the kids ("Orange juice - that's liquid Australian sunshine") it was a treat just to watch.

I don't think the disempowered lot we have today would even be permitted to take the time to pull something like that off.

[prairiegirl]

pilots loaded bags back in the 70's?? I WANT PICTURES LOL

[Keg]

Was talking to a colleague at work yesterday (pilot) who is doing an MBA. He said that on the course he is doing, QF is held up as a beacon of what NOT to do. Apparently QF has one of the 'least educated' management workforces when it comes to formal training/ management degrees. His course talks about 'the ideal' and then they talk about Qantas. :(

I've cleaned the cabin, I've gone the extra mile for pax- a couple of days back walked down to the bulk to confirm for a nervous pax that her dog was actually on board- and done lots of things to keep the show on the road. I suspect my dodgy back would go if I tried chucking bags into the thing. I do all this for the passengers and my own personal pride. Sadly, given the fact that management don't recognise this, at some stage in the future I'm going to have to withdraw those extra efforts for a short period of time until they get the message.

Perhaps if you're not actually working for Qantas you shouldn't comment on what those who do work there will or will not do for their airline when they are properly acknowledged and respected by their management for our efforts. :ugh: :rolleyes:

[Tempo]

Sunfish...

I think you are right on the money.

[prairiegirl]

got it in one - i don't work for Qantas and i'm not a pilot. i am merely a lowly sales plebe out to make a buck just like the next guy. i don't want your back or anyone else's back to go out on my behalf. lol

[capt.cynical]

The OH&S "Nanny's" would S%*T themselves if they knew what the "Flight Stewards" of the 70's & 80's used to do to keep the show on the road. :D

[ampclamp]

Keg, I have a mate who is a Chairman's lounge card holder and is a director at a large multi national industrial firm. He has worked in HR /IR for years and is well informed in regards to the QF way.
I've had many conversations with him about QF HR and IR in particular and they are very poorly rated in that area. Quite the example of how not to do it.
The culture must change from the top down. Until then it is confrontation and do as I say not as I do.

[Aim Point]

How Qantas can take the heat out of its union disputes

Author, Greg Bamber, Professor, Department of Management at Monash University

Qantas chief Alan Joyce could learn much from US-based Southwest Airlines. AAP

The looming confrontation between Qantas and its pilots, engineers and baggage handlers could easily become Australia’s most dramatic industrial conflict since the waterfront dispute of 1998.

But it seems that some of the parties involved are not considering solutions available to ensure these disputes don’t develop into a full-blown crisis.

Rather than holding constructive talks, they appear to be making public inflammatory comments in a series of heated exchanges. In the latest salvo, Qantas chief Alan Joyce publicly condemned unions' “kamikaze campaign” on wages, describing their talk of industrial action as “throwing oil on the fire”.

Union leaders have previously criticised senior managers as “hard-line”, accusing them of trashing the Qantas brand while awarding themselves huge pay increases while denying modest pay increases and job security to workers.

Qantas and the unions need to adopt long-term, cultural changes to their industrial relations regime if the parties are to avoid costly disputes that destroy shareholder value, put jobs at risk and endanger Qantas' corporate reputation.

Qantas could learn from the experience of US-based Southwest Airlines, which has worked hard to foster good relations between managers, employees and unions and has become one of the most successful airlines in the world.
Navigating forward

At 90 years old, Qantas is one of the most successful “legacy” airlines in the world.

Legacy airlines generally reflect militaristic traditions of command-and-control. But partly because of this highly adversarial approach, legacy airlines like Qantas seem not to find it easy to achieve trust and high productivity from their workers.

Adding to this tension is a tendency to outsource, restructure and cut employment costs – highlighted in Qantas’s recent move to base staff overseas and outsource some maintenance work.

This reflects Qantas’s aim to cut costs in the face of rising fuel prices and tougher competition, but has left groups of Qantas staff concerned about their pay and job security.

The Southwest solution

In contrast, Southwest – a much younger airline – has developed a constructive management culture that strongly values the views and interests of its employees.

Southwest was founded in 1971 in Texas. Like Qantas, Southwest it is heavily unionised, with 88% of employees paying union dues.

Nevertheless, Southwest adopts management strategies based on fostering partnerships, mutuality and staff engagement.

By 2007, Southwest had become the largest airline in the world by total number of passengers carried per year and it has been continually profitable since it was founded.

This is unusual in the airline industry, which often faces much turbulence, currently from rising fuel costs.

Southwest attributes much of this success to its constructive relationship with its staff and the unions.

The airline holds quarterly briefings with unions when its profits are reported and according to management, aims to treat its staff like “family”.

Employees are treated more as a source of value, rather than as a cost. Consequently, it has never retrenched any of its workers.

The airline allows employees to choose their own representatives at company meetings and respects the legitimacy of the union.
Business logic

In Up in the Air, our book on the airline industry, a Southwest executive explained the business logic behind the company’s management style.

“Our people know what the airline industry environment is like,“ the executive said. "I am confident they will do what it takes to keep Southwest on top. I would consider it a failure if we have to go to our employees and tell them to take a pay cut.”

Southwest generally works through difficult issues in a form of joint problem-solving, in partnership with the workforce rather than via public slanging matches and threatening industrial disputes.

While many airlines have tried to copy aspects of productivity-enhancing innovations pioneered by Southwest – such as the fast turn-around of planes – its industrial-relations strategies have not become commonplace.

But this does not mean that Qantas cannot transform its management and industrial-relations strategy.

After a period of much turbulence in the US, another large old legacy airline, Continental, succeeded in transforming its previously troubled management and industrial relations in the 1990s.

The adversaries at the Flying Kangaroo could learn much from the constructive dialogue, cooperative approaches and mutual-gains-style negotiations that Southwest managers and unions adopt – and from Continental’s transformation.

As they confront big issues, such learning would be in the interests of all the Qantas stakeholders – including investors, workers and the customers.

[legaleagle73]

My wife is an HR manager for a large international company. She recently went on an organisational development course run by a well respected firm in that field. I won't give all the details because I don't want to cause grief to anyone but, essentially, after speaking about how employees should be treated, Qantas was raised as an example of a company getting it all wrong. Anyone see a theme here?

[C441]

A friend recently did a business study, that included interviewing staff, of one of our recently successful football clubs.
He came away with one overriding impression.
From the property stewards to the CEO there was one common perception; we are all responsible for the result on the field and the success of this club and we are given the appropriate resources and support to achieve it.

This could not be said for Qantas today.

[rocket66]

First of all I do not work for Qantas. From what I read things are not all fine and dandy as they should be. Transperency is a big word not often understood by people in high places these days.

If management is not transparent usually it means they have things to hide.

[The Black Panther]

What I find extraodinary is managements time scales.
Here's but a few
New Roster implementation [2 years]
Email response important HR matter [8 weeks]
Official notice of failed redundancy applc's (30) [1.8 years]
Previous EBA agreement settlement [+1 year]
Current EA agreement [7 months and counting]
Pls add here......

They now have 2 unions (Pilots & Eng's) waiting settlemment of matters and all we hear is silence. Probably enjoying an extended Easter holiday, oh...how silly of me. I thought we were a 24/7 operation.

In the meantime the employees try to focus on their job at hand while the IR distractions just add RISK to their every minute at work while the sendentry style of management plods on.

I think the Stakeholders and Shareholders patience is runnning out. The share price is down 27% in six months and still hasn't found a floor price.

[oicur12.again]

“Mate, it's about empowerment if you have ever flown Southwest and watched them work you will understand this.”

Yep, as a regular commuter for work I fly Southwest A LOT. And others.

“Qantas had that same spirit in the 1970's and at least half the 1980's.”

Really. Captains loaded bags? Fleet managers spent a week on the ramp? Check in staff dumped toilets? I doubt it.

The empowerment and work ethic you talk of is the result of very clever staff selection. It is extremely uncommon for legacy airlines to simply revolutionize the existing workforce from disenfranchised “job builders” to hard working empowered “line of sighters”.

[WoodenEye]

Expect just about all would agree that Ownership at Southwest works exceedingly well and the United ESOP flopped dreadfully.

1995 was a good year for United Airlines. It was the first year under its new ESOP, which owned 55% of the company and the best year for shareholders in the company's 70-year history, outperforming Standard & Poor's by 67%, increasing shareholder value by over $4 billion. Employee grievances fell 74 percent. Revenue per employee went up 10%. Employees were organized into system-wide "best of business" (BOB) teams to iron out thorny issues to find ways to improve operations and cut costs.

But, 2000 was the last year of the ESOP, and the start of a disastrous period for United. Its ESOP had abjectly failed.

Why are the Soutwest and United experiences so different? Well, according to the National Center for Ownership in the US:
Regretfully, (at United) neither labor nor management was ever fully committed to creating an "ownership culture" in which employees could participate actively in day-to-day work-level decisions. Both sides tried out this approach in the first year, with the remarkable results noted above. But at the end of that "experiment" everyone reverted to the old ways of doing things.

It seems to me, the difference is Southwest employees continue to work in teams to make decisions, full information on corporate and work unit performance is shared and employees are urged to use their judgment to make whatever decisions are necessary to please customers. Where as, at United, once the looming financial disaster was thought to be beaten, the Ownership culture was lost.

Further reading available at:"But What About United Airlines?" Answering Tough Questions (http://www.ownershipassociates.com/united_questions.shtm)

NEC Source:United Airlines, ESOPs, and Employee Ownership (Commentary on Current Issues, November 2002) (http://www.nceo.org/main/column.php/id/315)

[Metro man]

Will someone please explain which market QF are trying to compete in. At the moment they aren't good enough for the top end and aren't cheap enough for the bottom end.

If I want quality travel I'll go Singapore Airlines.

If I want convenient connections I'll go Emirates.

If I want to save money I'll try the airfare search engines and see what comes up. Guaranteed QANTAS won't be the cheapest.

[ampclamp]

Will someone please explain which market QF are trying to compete in. At the moment they aren't good enough for the top end and aren't cheap enough for the bottom end.

If I want quality travel I'll go Singapore Airlines.

If I want convenient connections I'll go Emirates.

If I want to save money I'll try the airfare search engines and see what comes up. Guaranteed QANTAS won't be the cheapest.

Metro man,

Do you think what you state is an accident?
Just poor planning?
A cunning plan to ensure failure?

I believe it is a long term strategy to shrink it until it is unviable on all but the most lucrative routes. I believe they have chosen not to compete on product, fares, routes & destinations.

[POT100]

I couldn't agree more Ampclamp!..

I think its pretty obvious to all that QF picked the wrong man for CEO..A man who has a great vision for a Low cost operation but when it comes to a premium service.."mmm, I dunno that one, to be sure to be sure..!"..

He leads us from one bungle to the next and drives this great company in no direction whatsoever, while our competitors race away with honours.
This is still a great brand but is a dinosaur in its methods and procedures and needs to change.

QF needs a Leader who has a vision to make this airline one of the greats again and then we can send our CEO back to the Emerald Isle once and for all!!:ugh:

[WorthWhat]

Expect supporters of Qantas’ two brand strategy would say
· Joint service agreements and code sharing makes Mainline convenient,
· Jetstar is a very good LCC proposition, and
· Mainline provides good value for the premium prices it charges.

On the other hand, others would no doubt say that no hybrid airline can, simultaneously do both well enough. Interesting, BA and JAL have chosen not to implement a Premium/LCC two brand strategy and recall that DELTA recently reabsorbed its LCC spin off.

Qantas Mainline's declining international market share may well suggest that too many travellers are coming to the view that SIA and Emirates provide better value premium products than Qantas & its Code Share Partners, and that the two brand strategy is not delivering, but this is really a matter for shareholders.

Nevertheless, a Fosters’ style demerger might deliver greater value to Qantas Shareholders than the status quo and is a question that is likely to be increasingly asked, if QAN's share price continues to tank.

[skybed]

create a short term boost to the share price and more bonuses to senior managers, but would be a disaster in the medium term for J*. no more subsidies, use of facilities of any kind. :ugh:

[WorthWhat]

Not according to The Australian.

WITH barely a breath of hesitation the 15-year experiment that was Foster's attempt to mix beer with wine to create new streams of shareholder wealth was yesterday undone by owners plainly as weary with the legendary multi-beverage strategy as were the company's board and management.

Foster's wine-beer demerger to clarify divisions' value | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/fosters-wine-beer-demerger-to-clarify-divisions-value/story-e6frg8zx-1226047215061)

[max1]

I remember the days when the skipper was at the door, in full uniform at the end of the flight to farewell the passengers. AFAIK, the skipper wasn't required to do this, professionalism seemed to compel him to be there.
No company requirement made him be there.
I remember as a kid with brothers and sister getting a ride in the lift on the 747 courtesy of the cabin crew in the dead of night, and getting to go up to the cockpit at some stage. No-one had to do this, but the crew had great pride in their jobs. I don't think they overtly understood that they were promoting the brand and were the best advertisement Qantas had. They enjoyed their jobs. The Chief Steward(?) and PIC allowed this.
This was the Brand. You got on the Flying Kangaroo and you were already half way home. The people at the top end had the ability to pull their heads out of their spreadsheets (arse) and grasp the business.
We have for the last 25+ years, had the underperformers who have insinuated their way into the management levels, they have white-anted those managers who had that intuitive understanding of their work area but can't write a report to paint themselves in a super positive way.
On the whole we have ended up with a group of managers who have become skilled in manipulation of data and message. The actual doing of the job/s is secondary to the business of looking good.
In some places Corporate Communications (spin doctors) and HR/IR are now THE BUSINESS. This other stuff is just peripheral.
If one of these managers get a sniff that someone is doing something that is not mandated,or approved but promotes 'The Brand' or gets something done better, they'll be almost paralysed with indecision as they assess whether they should punish the individual for doing something outside the rules/procedures or find a self-advantage in adopting the difference.
Viva the 80's????????

[aussie027]

Max1-
Bloody well said.
you are 110% correct in your observations re the company and especially re management types wanting to look good rather than be good/great at doing the actual job they are being paid the big bucks to do. :ugh::=
Same in many aviation companies today as well as in other industries.
All about show and style above substance and value.:ugh:

If the crew of QF32 had been working on those principles of operation that A380 and 450 plus people would have left a hole in the ocean and be resting on the bottom now.

[TIMA9X]

The 'Jetstarising' of Qantas has left it stuck on the tarmac with a poor reputation (http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-jetstarising-of-qantas-has-left-it-stuck-on-the-tarmac-with-a-poor-reputation-20110501-1e2xn.html)
What is new, and which could be the biggest threat to the airline, is the damage to its brand.
Its chief executive, Alan Joyce, recently accused the unions of running a ''kamikaze'' campaign that was likely to drive customers to competing airlines.
While this might be so, a bigger "kamikaze" campaign was the decision by the board and senior management to run down the Qantas brand and create confusion among customers about the two brands of Qantas and Jetstar.
But with a share price falling and some major issues he needs to address, he will need to decide whether Qantas is a growth stock or a yield stock, a full-cost carrier with a budget airline, or a budget airline with a full service domestic business. Right now it is neither.





This view is slowly becoming mainstream media, the word's out confirming what many have been saying on here, to be sure!

[Sunfish]

The Fosters Board just realised you can't be in the wine market and the beer market at the same time.

BHP realised that you can't be a steel producer and a miner/oil and gas producer at the same time.

Qantas will make the same discovery if it survives long enough because the mindsets of an LCC operator and a full service operator are different.

It was McKinseys the management consulting firm that taught this and makes big bucks out of teaching it still.

The reason that this conglomerate approach (ie: The Idea of the Qantas Group) never works is that it asks too much of the Board and CEO. It asks too much because ultimately the Board will have to decide on competing investment priorities and cannot give all their time to understanding just one business. - ie: Jetstar wants this aircraft, Mainline wants that aircraft, regional wants this, etc., etc. ???

BHP didn't wake up to itself (with the help of McKinseys) until after their disastrous decision to purchase Magma Copper in the U.S. which cost them a billion dollars. Fosters finally understood that there is nothing in common between the wine and beer industries apart from the act of drinking the product.

McKinseys teaches that the most long term profitable companies are those that focus on a single market segment and where everyone from the Board down is totally committed to thinking, eating and breathing that segment and product every waking moment.

It is not possible for the Qantas Board and CEO to get their heads around the cheese paring LCC strategy and the full service mainline strategy and back in a single Board meeting. They may think they can, but they will inevitably make bad decisions because they will be unable to deal with the competing priorities on their time.

To put it another way; asking them to do Two things at once means that they will do neither very well. The whole is less than the sum of its parts.

[GENKI]

AS QANTAS stares down the barrel of some potentially explosive industrial action over the next few weeks, analysts have been taking the knife to their forecasts, particularly as oil prices continue to rise and speculation grows of an equity-raising.
With so much negativity, the company's shares drifted down to $2.11 on Friday, a whisker away from its $2 issue price when it listed more than 15 years ago.
Tough times have long been a recurring theme at Qantas and the latest round of challenges - rising oil prices, threats of industrial action and a string of mid-air emergencies last year - is nothing new.
Advertisement: Story continues below
What is new, and could be the biggest threat to the airline, is the damage to its brand.
Its chief executive, Alan Joyce, recently accused the unions of running a ''kamikaze'' campaign that was likely to drive customers to competing airlines. While this might be so, a bigger "kamikaze" campaign was the decision by the board and senior management to run down the Qantas brand and create confusion among customers about the two brands of Qantas and Jetstar.
When Joyce was appointed boss in November 2008, Qantas was the only airline in the world that had a successful two-brand airline strategy: Qantas and budget airline Jetstar. Back then Qantas was considered a premium brand that was so outstanding that there was no confusion between Qantas and Jetstar.
Fast forward to today and the concern is that Joyce has systematically "Jetstarised" Qantas, with the perception of Qantas as a premium full-service airline diminished.
Instead of trying to reverse this with strong marketing of the Qantas brand, it has done the reverse.
A key issue is its international unit, which loses money. Joyce recently ordered a review of the international arm of Qantas to see how to restore profitability. The most likely impact will be further route cuts for Qantas and a transfer to Jetstar.
Between 2003 and 2009, international capacity to Australia increased by 39 per cent, but inbound passengers increased by just 10 per cent. This trend was due to many factors, including airlines from the Middle East taking market share, as well as Qantas reducing routes and capacity on some of these routes, allowing Emirates and others to enter the market and lift capacity.
In terms of capacity, its latest half-yearly accounts indicate that Jetstar increased domestic capacity by 20 per cent and international capacity by 18 per cent. This pace is in contrast to Qantas, which expanded capacity by 3.3 per cent, with plans to increase it by 4.5 per cent.
Whatever surveys and customer service reports that Qantas brings up, mounting anecdotal evidence shows it has lost the mindshare of customers. The growing perception is Qantas doesn't care about safety, customer service or its employees.
Flights running late with little explanation, flight attendants with low morale, sour faces at check-in desks and poor IT systems have left a bad taste in many people's mouths about Qantas.
From my own experience, I took a flight to London in March, with a stopover in Hong Kong. The Qantas plane was old, the seat clapped out, food and service poor and on each leg of the trip the entertainment system failed and took at least two hours to re-boot.
I complained on March 21 and immediately received an automated response saying: "We are committed to always caring for our customers and responding to your valued feedback in a timely manner."
Besides getting told not to respond to this email as it was an "outgoing only" service that does not accept incoming messages, it took almost a month, April 15, before I received a response. The letter, titled "apologies", was another standard letter that didn't deal with the issues. Signed by a customer care executive called Josephine, it said: "We are concerned to learn of your experience and I would personally like to apologise that you did not receive the premium level of service expected from Qantas. Please be assured we are listening and that your feedback has been forwarded to the relevant management as part of this process… I hope we have the opportunity to welcome you aboard Qantas again soon."
The fob-off letter was disappointing from an airline that once prided itself on its high standard of customer service. It is part of the Jetstarisation of Qantas.
There is no doubt that Jetstar has a lot of advantages over Qantas, including fewer unions and different pay scales. These differences have caused a lot of consternation among staff and unions, who argue that younger pilots are being pushed into the lower pay and worse conditions at Jetstar. The argument is that Jetstar is getting the newer planes and the younger pilots, while the more experienced pilots are with the Qantas brand, which has the older planes.
In the past few weeks analysts have downgraded their profit figures for Qantas when it reports it full-year results, and on Friday Deutsche Bank's credit desk issued an update that the carrier's credit profile weakened further, reflecting oil prices and recent adverse market developments. It said downgrade risk could be reduced if the company implements opex/capex/dividend cuts. "We also think an equity-raising may be necessary depending on market conditions in the near term."
Joyce has been in the job for 2½ years and has done a good job during challenging times. But with a share price falling and some major issues he needs to address, he will need to decide whether Qantas is a growth stock or a yield stock, a full-cost carrier with a budget airline, or a budget airline with a full-service domestic business.
Right now it is neither.
[email protected]

[Sunfish]

At the time Jetstar was formed I repeated Robert Townsend's observation from "Up The Organisation" - his book about the saving and restructure of Avis.

When tempted to start a low cost car rental division to compete with emerging low cost competitors he asked one of his Vice Presidents for comment on the idea.

The response: "In Polish, we call that p1ssing in the soup."

That is exactly what Qantas is now belatedly realising it's done.

[GlobalMaster]

Chief executive, Alan Joyce, recently accused the unions of running a ''kamikaze'' campaign that was likely to drive customers to competing airlines.

While this might be so, a bigger "kamikaze" campaign was the decision by the board and senior management to run down the Qantas brand and create confusion among customers about the two brands of Qantas and Jetstar.


Is a big call Adele. :uhoh:

[WorthWhat]

Is indeed a big call and probably something shareholders will eventually have to iron out.

[Capt Kremin]

It is spot on if you ask me.

[rodchucker]

And it just keeps getting worse.

Media reports today in Sydney from staff at Q Catering that meals are being frozen and stored well before before despatch to aircraft. This included J Class despite all the hype about fresh and master chefs. Guess this happens when you alienate staff.

Major competitors must be loving these guys endless efforts to alienate premium passengers in pursuit of bonuses.

[ampclamp]

"Q Catering that meals are being frozen and stored well before before despatch to aircraft."

You cant mean the quiches that the ovens cannot deal with on a short sector.Like trying to fire bricks in a low heat kiln.:{

[The Green Goblin]

You can only pull so many bricks out of the wall until the whole lot comes tumbling down.

There are not too many bricks left for Qantas to be able to pull, in fact a few bricks need to be shoved back in pretty darn quickly!

[-438]

Share prices do not always reflect reality. As Alan himself has said the sum of the parts do not equate to the whole. The value on all the individual parts of the QF group would add up to a far greater sum than Qantas current market capitalisation.
Why is this so?
I believe it is because of current and previous executives mismanagement. It's hard to see an upside to the share price without cleaning out the people who got us here in the first place.
Essentially current Qantas management are the reason why the company is performing poorly and why the share price is underperforming. Investors do not have confidence in current management.

If Alan Joyce himself were a company and you could buy shares in Alan Joyce the returns to date would be remarkable, year on year profit increases (wages), with no capital investment. However questions would start to be asked about how long term viability of AJ inc. How can AJ inc keep producing massive increases in profit when essentially the service it provides is bad for the customer (QF). About now would be a good time to divest of AJ inc.
This in turn would provide a boost to QF share price and profitability as Qantas would no longer have the anchor that is AJ inc.

[esreverlluf]

Well said - the only way QANTAS can survive is to get away from the Dixon/Joyce style of management.

Why aren't the institutional investors approaching the board to force change??:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[skybed]

investors have the board removed to start a new course. It must be the most incompetent board in australia.:ugh::ugh:

[runesta]

The reason that this conglomerate approach (ie: The Idea of the Qantas Group) never works is that it asks too much of the Board and CEO. It asks too much because ultimately the Board will have to decide on competing investment priorities and cannot give all their time to understanding just one business. - ie: Jetstar wants this aircraft, Mainline wants that aircraft, regional wants this, etc., etc. ???

Sunfish that's utter crap. There are many examples of successful conglomerate approaches in the business world where corporations own many different areas or facets of business. The key to success is in how you manage the business.

Many people are quick to say that the Qantas Group concept is not working. Well let's see.... some Qantas staff hate Jetstar, some customers hate Jetstar, some Qantas mainline routes and markets have been cannablised by Jetstar. But in the broader picture the strategy has worked better for the past 7 years than any LCC set up by any legacy carriers worldwide.

What these people have forgotten is that in fact the strategy was so successful (and also due to the fact Godfreys had reached the end of his useful life in Virgin Blue) that Virgin Blue had to react (and is doing so now) in its game-changing strategy. The twist? JB has an excellent grasp of Qantas's SWOT (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) so he knows how to customise Virgin Blue's strategy against Qantas.

The shareprice do not necessarily only reflect on management incompetence, it actually tells you a lot more about the market (And are we conveniently forgetting about Virgin Blue share prices ($2 to 29c)?)

Overall the aviation industry is volatile (dogs breakfast) and highly susceptible to external shocks. If some investors have only now realised airline shares are worthless they probably shouldn't invest in shares at all. In the scale of share returns I am sure airline shares are right at the bottom of the list.

Current senior Qantas management lack fresh ideas to reinvigorate the company. Everythings about cost but what about customer retention and making customer and employees happy?

[rodchucker]

Everythings about cost but what about customer retention and making customer and employees happy?

Some costs seem to be treated differently......What about the bonus driven culture, reimbursement for tax effect changes, retentions payments and post employment consultancy and spin doctors?

[Sunfish]

Runesta:

Sunfish that's utter crap. There are many examples of successful conglomerate approaches in the business world where corporations own many different areas or facets of business. The key to success is in how you manage the business.

I'm sorry, but it isn't "utter crap". There are many examples of conglomerates who survive but none to my (or McKinseys) knowledge that produce returns commensurate with the assets employed in the long term.

That, my friend, is why so many mergers and acquisitions go tits up. That is where the phrase "not a good organizational fit with our company" comes from as executives seek to explain why they are selling a business they paid $650 million for is now being sold for $200 million.

The reality is that each business is different and that difference extends all the way to Board level. It is a fallacy to assume that all companies can be managed exactly the same way at senior level - they can't.

Then there is the idea of "synergies" which is BS, and its why Fosters is splitting its brewing and wine businesses. In theory there were "synergies" - they both use fermentation, glass bottles, and that is all they have in common. Remember Southcorp and Adsteam? - packaging, water heaters and wine? That was a classic case of a conglomerate mess.

The differences extend even to HR - how to attract, remunerate and hold a perhaps temperamental genius of a winemaker in a business whose HR practices are tailored to brewery staff? I speak from bitter experience. My first really, really senior management role was in a division of Email Ltd., a manufacturing company famously known for its penny pinching cost consciousness. I had to try an integrate a computer software business it had acquired by accident into its operations. It proved impossible because Email could not get its head around the idea that there were Twenty something kids who pecked at terminals,spoke Unix and needed to be paid a lot of money if we were to keep them.

To put it simply, the Board and Management of Jetstar need to be totally separated from the Board and Management of Qantas, and I mean really separated as in ownership because over time they will want to go in diverging directions and keeping them handcuffed together (eg common aircraft types) just hampers both of them.

The economists worked out that conglomerates were a waste of money by about 1980 after the failure of some big ones. They reasoned that if I want exposure to the textile, aerospace and wine industry then I was better off buying shares in companies that specialised in each of those markets, not in one company trying to do all Three.

To put it another way, why doesn't Qantas sell,operate or hire Cessnas and Cirrus aircraft or start a business jet division? After all, they all have wings and fly? There must be "synergies" right?

[ciport]

"Everything is about cost"

This has been the management "style" for the last 10 years. Unfortunately this is the most short-sighted way to run a business . The constant cost cutting may have improved short term profitabilty (=management bonuses) but it has been pursued to such an extent that it has degraded the product significantly.

You have to spend money to make money but they wont spend any money on long haul because its not making any money because they haven't spent any money on it. Catch 22.

Frozen food.
Yes j and y class food is prepared in Bris, frozen and trucked as far away as Perth. Google snap fresh.

[h.o.t.a.s.]

To diverge from the current discussion just a bit;

The 'Today' show weather reports this morning were used to conduct a Qantas Wallabies promotion, in front of a 737 painted up in Wallabies colours.

Said 737 had a ZK rego, and will be flown by Kiwi crew. :ugh:

[ampclamp]

They must have forgotten it was a NZ business:E.
fancy putting a Wallabies sticker on a kiwi jet:rolleyes:

[Captain Sherm]

All good points Sunfish and I am sure (and as a shareholder I certainly hope) that these thoughts will be on the Board's minds as they ponder the future.

But not that many years back that same Board had to confront a world where deregulation was well under way, and there was the potential for the double whammy of rapid growth accompanied by rapid yield reductions. Impulse presented an ideal opportunity and the Board would have been derelict to overlook the opportunity. This is a fact and they did the right thing to protect mainline yields, however imperfect the execution, however much collateral damage has come from an ideological bias and from groups like AIPA failing to see the new future and embrace the Impulse pilots.

The job is only half done however as we can all see....having a fleet mix that is truly horrific, having a management structure that has to administer way too many contracts, brand names, EBAs and transfer prices, having embedded a truly cruel "us vs them" industrial relations strategy.....these need to be on the table too. Even if JQ were parcelled up and sold tomorrow, and that done in a way that did continue to protect mainline yields, these other problems would remain.

I wish them all well....this is too big a set of issues not to address and slogans/hates/ideology/mantras/amateurism/hubris/negligence/ignorance should have no place in the solution paradigms.

[33 Disengage]

h.o.t.a.s. - I don't think you have diverged from this thread's topic.

Didn't AJ just promote Olivia to head up this type of public relations exercise? Just like last week's "Qantas 737 emergency landing", QF management are confused as to whether Jetconnect is run by QF management or operates as a seperate entity owned by Qantas. Hopefully, Fair Work Australia will be able to give the QF board and management some guidance on this "confusing" issue. Obviously by today's mistake, Olivia doesn't understand that the Wallabies are an Australian team!!

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Qantas is being deliberately ran into the ground by this management so the Directors of OrangeStar/ NewStar can put a bid together to purchase Qantas on the Cheap.

Very creative accountancy to make it happen but it will happen.

This enables the government to be saved the inconvenience of financing a bailout, and the embarrassment of QF failing.

It will allow management the ability to circumvent the Qantas sales act, then probably on sell Qantas to Singapore Airlines.

It also allows Qantas to be then based in Singapore, under Newstar/ orangeStar management.

Employment conditions can be based under Singapore terms and conditions, Aircraft depreciation can be reduced to three years and NO UNIONS!

No more pesky, expensive Australians, problem solved. :ok:


More needs to be researched by smarter people than me (any investigative reporters out there?) on who are the Directors of these companies based out of Singapore. I am finding it hard to compile a list for these entities.
I bet the grand picture will become clearer of Qantas's fate when these people are exposed.

[breakfastburrito]

Stalin, you have crystallized my thesis into a very plausible scenario. It's always had that pump'n'dump feel about it.

It may not play out exactly as you speculate, probably any one of a number of variations but I believe history will show you to be very close to the money.

Criminals.

[whatever6719]

I dont know if I agree with that scenario Ugly.

Do you really reckon Orangestar or whoever would delibately trash Qantas to the extent that you are saying, then resurrect it later just so it can do away with a unionised workforce? Im sure even they could think of simpler ways of cutting costs that destroying an iconic Australian brand like that.

Even though aussies love to hate Qantas, I dont think they would allow it to be run out of Singapore. Even the govt would baulk at that.

In my humble opinion, I really do think a successful 2 brand strategy was their intention, but, they got greedy. They saw the savings that could be made by "Jetstarising" Qantas and they have sadly gone too far with it.
The media is now running with that as per the article yesterday in the Fairfax papers and the our declining market share internationally speaks for itself.

We need a swift, wide broom. And it cant come a moment too soon.

[breakfastburrito]

Right along those lines, I heard the reason Borgetti didn't take the CEO job, was because, as he explained, he had no choice, the job description read
"Screw the Roo, light the star".

[Captain.Que]

I have yet to meet a Qantas Executive who is particularly bright.I tend to agree with the above post.Jetstar seemed like a good idea at the time but it has just gone too far and now the brightest men in the room dont know what to do about it

[whatdouknow]

good call rocket66... it isn't rocket science is it!

[whatdouknow]

did anyone tell the TODAY show (website) that the Aircraft in the Wallabies colours was operated by another company?

[Jimothy]

Had a look at the Great Crusade website as mentioned on the Today show: About The Great Crusade (http://www.thegreatcrusade.com/about).
No mention of Jetconnect, but plenty of Qantas logos and sponsorship info. There is a Contacts listed, maybe some questions to them may enlighten us.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Whatever 6719,

The Qantas (executives) goal is to bypass the unions, offshore the business and line their own pockets with millions and retire to Rio ( or San Fran).

The Orangestar/Newstar scenario allows this to happen.

You are right the public and the government won't want to allow this to happen.
However, if Qantas mainline is made to look like such a basket case, the Government would be put in a position to save it, which will probably mean lifting foreign ownership as the Government will not financially save Qantas. The Government will however be open to suggestions with the quashing of the QF sales act being the first. Saving an Icon will be used as an excuse to lift these restrictions.

So who buys it? Well you can take it from there..................

[whatdouknow]

good info Jimothy... now who has an unknown e-mail address? It is a NZ tour but surely Jetconnect shouldn't have Australian stuff down the side.

[breakfastburrito]

Right out the GFC TBTF playbook Stalin.

We just need a housing crash and nasty recession to set the final scene for failure...

[33 Disengage]

When your main competitor is all over the media spruiking new livery, new aircraft, new cabin fitout, new uniforms, how does QF repond? They send the CEO and Head of Corporate Relations out into the media to attack their own pilots and engineers.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

[rodchucker]

Well what else do you do when you have no idea what to do and you want to show this to the world?

Nero, fiddling, Rome and burning come to mind.

[hotnhigh]

Joyce worked at Aer Lingus, the flag carrier of Ireland, until he left in 1996 to join the now-defunct Ansett Australia.
Mr Strambi has more than 30 years' experience as an airline executive in Europe and Australia, where he previously worked with both Mr Dixon and Mr Joyce at Ansett Airlines.
Ms. Grant served as the Senior Vice President Customer Service at Ansett/Air New Zealand Group.

The winning team.

[Oldmate]

A good start would be to put the international style (millenium?) business class seats back in the 767s for domestic use. Also get all the aircraft into the new colour scheme, some of the paint jobs at the moment are just embarrassing.

[Short_Circuit]

I believe they are pumping the aircraft over to China (outsourced) for resprays as fast as they can.. :suspect: China .. :uhoh:

[TIMA9X]

Joyce worked at Aer Lingus, the flag carrier of IrelandYep he did, EI was a basket case at that time lurching from one crisis to the next right up until 2009! No wonder he jumped ship for OZ, a bit like all the ex BMI managers (British Midland) now residing in SIN working at Tiger.:E

As I see it, AJ hasn't learned much other than Q seems to be traveling on the same track as EI under his leadership.

Another interesting comparison from that time was the BA/Go low cost debacle around 2000, another fine mess rectified by Rod Eddington.

After returning a profit within 2 years, the incoming BA chairman Rod Eddington decided that Go had become a liability for BA, since it was cannibalising the airline's core business. It was clear to him that BA's priority had to be in restructuring its own full-service operations. In November 2000, British Airways said that Go “simply does not fit in with our full-service strategy” and that it would sell Go, valuing it at £100 million. In March 2001, British Airways gave private equity firm 3i negotiating rights to buy Go and on June 14th 2001 the deal was sealed. 3i owned 43%, with Go’s Management team, the City and Go people owning the rest; Barbara Cassani said, “Our people deserve the credit for Go’s success and that is why I want them to become co-owners of the airline.” On 16 May 2002, easyJet made an announcement that it was to buy Go for £374 million to expand its own operations. By December 2002, easyJet and Go operated under one Air Operators Certificate (AOC) and in April 2003 the airlines operated as one, fully under the easyJet brand. In November 2003, Barbara Cassani published a book titled - Go, An Airline Adventure.http://i.planepictures.net/17/47/1074976905_TN.jpg
I think GD got the "private equity" idea from what was happening in the UK, thank god Qs sharholders saw through it, imagine the mess Q would have been in today...

The Q board simply have picked the wrong style of CEO for this market, other words, I believe you can not apply this European model in Australia hence the problems we now face in Q mainline, the blind leading the blind at the top of Q management..

[gruntyfen]

"since it was cannibalising the airline's core business"

Says it all! BA handled it well turning their problem child into a wad of cash. I suppose they could have done nothing other than blaming the unions.

[The The]

AJ recently stated that Jetstar is worth $3.5b, Frequent Flyer worth $2b. Freight worth $1b. Market Cap of group is $5.7b.

So that makes Qantas worth negative $800million.

Well AJ, have I got a deal for you!

If you pay me $800 million, I will take Qantas off your hands and run it myself (you can keep the management). That will make your books look good. You could even do a management buyout of the rest.

But be warned, if you do so, Jetstar might not be worth so much when it has to pay its own bills and compete with my re-launched Qantas expanded network. Qantas frequent flyer might take a dive without the Qantas part; and I will also charge you to carry freight on my aeroplanes, so your freight business might not be worth all that much either.

Anyway, good luck flogging the rest of the group to yourselves!:ugh:

[stewser89]

:D:D:D


Sounds like doggy bean counters are already at work.

I wonder if anyone has calculated how much QF goodwill have fallen over the last 2 - 1 1/2 years?

[wishiwasupthere]

Photos: Boeing 737-838 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas-(Jetconnect)/Boeing-737-838/1914096/L/)

Slight thread, drift, but does anyone think its ironic that a NZ registered aircraft operated by a supposed NZ registered company is sporting stickers to support the Wallabies in the rugby WC?

[ampclamp]

It has been discussed on another thread but yes it is just a bit odd to say the least! Identity crisis.
Send it to the senators who sat on the enquiry.

[Short_Circuit]

To wage a war against Virgin, QF will have to stop the war against its own employees first, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

[QFinsider]

It was called Project Suzie. A little team from Macquarie aided by Kerry Packer and of course Qantas management were going to private equity the company.
Dixon, Pemberton Strong etc were all involved...

History repeated..

This is industrial warfare now led by Clifford who is going to make Qantas the next area for waterfront like reform that Corrigan did on the docks. Joyce is merely singing the tune. Clifford is an interesting person, nearly tanked Rio Tinto due his asset buying splurge. Of course he parachuted out 18 months early and left it to someone else..

[ANCDU]

The current toxic environment and management of the brand will not change in the near future. The board and executive don't have the humility to admit how they have been wrong. Unlike a few years ago the next 12-15 months will see Qantas under attack from both sides, leisure and high yield.

Jetstar will be under pressure both from a weak leisure travel sector and Tiger, while Qantas domestic will be dealing with an invigorated Virgin product. This will test AJ's ability, he has never really faced any competition in the domestic arena before, and its against his money cow, Qantas domestic.

Virgin has brought the fight to parts of Qantas that JB knows domestically needs a lot of money spent on it, the cabin, the staff and the aircraft. The new Qantas A330's and 738's are probably some of the best equipped (in terms of seats and IFE)domestic aircraft around, but its luck of the draw if you get them. The old 734/8 and 767's unfortunately decrease the appeal. Throw in the fact you must use J* on some routes and JB's plan to attack the Qantas brand starts to make even more sense. You fly virgin you know what you are getting to every destination, who knows what you get when you buy a Qantas ticket?

What do you do AJ? This isn't a threat you can use J* to counter, even with a domestic starclass. Interesting times. This might actually turn out to be the best thing for Qantas domestic since Dixon bought Impulse......then again probably not.:(

[whatever6719]

Geez..... Don't even mention domestic Starclass, even in jest.
That wound almost certainly spell the eventual demise of mainline domestic.

[Popgun]

even with a domestic starclass.

LOL! The Bintang Bogans would feel VERY special indeed! LMAO!

PG

[gutso-blundo]

Domestic Starclass: Not schmancy, just a little bit fancy :ok:

[whatever6719]

LOL Gutso, but I think Ill pass ;)

[my oleo is extended]

Amanda Bolger, PR and Communications Manager
Qantas
Interesting duo of Bolger and Wirthless ??

[timer88]

You folks remember that QF senior mangagement always complained that other airline like SQ has so much advantage over QF because its government ownership, it's the same old crying song covering their being incompetent so they can squeeze the last dollar out off hard working people in Qantas.

Please join me and shout: why not renationalise Qantas then! Airline should be run like utility company, it is providing the most basic service for the nation: air transportation, it shoud be operated for safety not for private profit, it is people's lives we are talking about here!

[breakfastburrito]

Please join me and shout: why not renationalise Qantas then!
I suspect this was one of the post-APA takeover escape plans for the consortium. Takeover, loot the cash (saving Allco) & transfer to all the crown jewels (IASA routes agreements, slots, terminals etc) to now private j*. Once that process was completed, the QF carcass would be IPO,ed, or failing that collapsed, for re-nationalisation (ANZ model), filed under the heading TBTF/national interest.

In other words, the greatest asset strip in Australian corporate history. Just a theory.

Ring any alarm bells?

[breakfastburrito]

Timer88, I'm not having a go at you :O.

What I am trying to say, is the cry for nationalisation is exactly what they want. Nothing would make management happier than to loot all the good stuff for themselves in a private company, and re-nationalise the international operation. This is the whole point of the last 30 years (in general, not just airlines), it is the greatest asset strip & privatisation of public wealth by a few in history.

What you would like to see and what the exec's want are mutually exclusive, it is a zero sum game.

[breakfastburrito]

what is your point? or you are retarded?
Why the language in you PM timer88?

[Cactusjack]

If QF were going broke, the possibility of government taking over QF has become more slim after Virgin Blue became Virgin Australia.
Our government is broke and being run by a pack of morons sinking us deeper into debt by the day. Now they are going to spend $300 mil on set top boxes plus installation, for pensioners ?
Hang on a minute, bail out QF ? Not a bad idea, great way to create even further debt and while the government is at it - how about every pensioner/retiree household recieve a free kevlar mail box out front of the house/unit/retirement village, the next generation or a hundred can pay that debt off also....

[breakfastburrito]

Apology accepted.

Is it so crazy, am I the only one that thinks along these lines? Crazy and outside the box thinking is how the swindle is likely to be pulled off by the exec's.
Whatever 6719,

The Qantas (executives) goal is to bypass the unions, offshore the business and line their own pockets with millions and retire to Rio ( or San Fran).

The Orangestar/Newstar scenario allows this to happen.

You are right the public and the government won't want to allow this to happen.
However, if Qantas mainline is made to look like such a basket case, the Government would be put in a position to save it, which will probably mean lifting foreign ownership as the Government will not financially save Qantas. The Government will however be open to suggestions with the quashing of the QF sales act being the first. Saving an Icon will be used as an excuse to lift these restrictions.

So who buys it? Well you can take it from there..................

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Posted by Timer88

If QF were going broke, the possibility of government taking over QF has become more slim after Virgin Blue became Virgin Australia.

I'm pretty sure AN was called "Ansett Australia" when they went under. :rolleyes:

[ANCDU]

Right or wrong I don't think putting "Australia" on the virgin brand would help a government bailout of VA (I don't think they will ever need it anyway). Most Australian's seem to connect the Virgin brand as a plaything of a RB, and don't really see it as part of australian culture.

On the other hand Qantas, whether you like it or not, is seen as "owned" by all australians, part of the culture. Its seen as our national airline, and therefore a bit of a political football. Would the government buy it out if it goes belly up? Who knows with this mob. Maybe they better start thinking about it, because on the inside things aren't looking real flash at the moment.

[ramble on]

Have just experienced the joys of QF business class.

The total quality of service in economy class in any of EK, SIA, Cathay etc is better than QF business class - and this is without the 'special' cabin staff attitude that seems so particular to QF when you ask for appear in the galley to ask for a drink, or have forgotten what was on the menu.

[another superlame]

Apart from VB now being Virgin Australia, I haven't seen them really do much in the times of need like Qantas does time and time again.

When the sh1t hits the fan and you are stuck overseas with a ticket on other airlines and not Qantas, then at times like these Qantas does make you feel a little proud. Even when they became a private company they continued this.

For all the crap that QF management have caused this iconic company this is one thing they have all continued to do.

Just because Borghetti put Australia in his airlines name doesn't give it overnight kudos in trying times.

Also if QF fell over tomorrow I don't think VB would have the ability to pick up the slack in a short amount of time.

Having said all this, it would be great to have QF management that cared more about what they had and could have again rather than short changing every passenger and staff member for the sake of a few greedy shareholders.

[D Delay-Hay]

Do you think that they do this out of the kindness of their hearts ? Of course not, the government ( our taxes ) picks up the tab.

[Orangputi]

Hi Ramble on!

Ihave also unfortunately experienced it (for the last time I add), just disgraceful/ no idea / cranky grandmas and ladyboys. the catering crap, poor aircraft interior and IFE and the tickets well overpriced! Sorry I maybe shooting from the hip but I am a full fair paying punter and it should matter!

[framer]

It is a bit rough now days I agree. I caught a 76 last week (economy) and the crew were bordering on surly. Definately not cheeful and helpful. When I asked for a drink the response was juuuuust inside downright rude. The crew I was near were a couple of blokes in late forties, couple of women in late forties or early fifties and I couldn't help thinking to myself " If this is all a bit too tiring for you, bugger off and get another job 'cause you're making my day slightly worse"
The flight was fine but the clapped out IFE screen at an 80 degree angle from my seat about two meters away was a dissapointment. Definately not worth the money.

[BrissySparkyCoit]

Don't forget, clapped out old aircraft without decent IFE is the fault of staff. That's right, it has nothing to do with the failure of management to invest in the fleet or to innovate their product.... couldn't do that.... like virgin.

[framer]

I'm totally with you on that. I even think that the attitudes of the cabin crew can be traced back to management style......to a degree. I understand that they may be annoyed with some of their conditions etc, but I also think that the individuals are responsible for creating the atmosphere on board and that it takes professionalism to hide away their frustrations and create that atmosphere.....or at least not create the opposite. If it's got to the stage where they are so angry that they are incapable of doing that, then I will fly with a different airline where things have not reached that stage. Not having a go at the crew, just how I see it. Sad really.

[standard unit]

Cabin crew "management" have recently stated that customer satisfaction with inflight service is higher than at any other time in the airline's history.

FACT.

A quick read of Orangputi's posting history demonstrates definite misogynist, chauvinistic, racist and homophobic tendencies.

Not to mention anti QF cabin crew bias.

What this "gentleman" seems not to understand is that exhibiting these tendencies [as I'm sure he can't help but do] is not going to lend oneself to receiving good service on any airline save those who's staff grovel subserviently.

No doubt anything less than fawning obsequiousness would be considered substandard by this individual.

Best that we take what our resident "Les Patterson" says with regard to cabin service with a grain of salt.

[fishers.ghost]

The latest on-again, off-again industrial action threatened by unions at Qantas will leave the airline's brand battered even if every flight ends up taking off as scheduled this week and next.
The licensed aircraft engineers union today called off plans to strike tomorrow (http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-flights-to-go-ahead-after-strike-called-off-20110512-1eji1.html), prompting Qantas to reinstate flights it had planned to cancel during peak travel times. Some 2,500 passengers on 31 canceled flights are presumably being contacted a second time today to be told to turn up at airports as initially intended.
At this stage, the engineers are sticking to their plans to stop work or limit operations next Monday and Tuesday, so the reprieve may be short-lived.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Either way, Alan Joyce’s decision to stare down the demands of unions and staff in the face of industrial action threatens to cost the company dearly at a time when its rival Virgin Australia is ramping up its business offering after one of the most highly regarded executives at Qantas, John Borghetti, was appointed last year to run the group.
Pilots are waiting in the wings, as it were, to join the engineers' action.
The Australian and International Pilots Association (AIPA) said today it had "drawn a line in the sand" because Qantas management was not negotiating seriously.
It said if Qantas did not signal a change of intent by close of business on Thursday next week, the union would take the first steps towards protected industrial action.
It comes as another union in negotiations with Qantas, the Transport Workers Union, also warned of possible industrial action.
With so much negativity, the company's shares (http://markets.businessday.com.au/apps/qt/quote.ac?code=qan&securityType=0&descContains=0&section=summary&sortBy=0&submit=Search) were marginally lower in afternoon trade at $2.13, after earlier touching $2.10, close to its $2 issue price when it listed more than 15 years ago. This price makes it one of the most disappointing privatisations on the ASX.
Battles
Qantas is battling rising oil prices, low staff morale a string of midair emergencies last year and a downgrade of the Qantas brand as it seeks to cut costs and promote its cheaper Jetstar brand.
There is a groundswell of anger inside Qantas at the treatment of staff and lack of consultation. It will be hard to find a solution without Joyce looking like he has lost control.
On the one hand, Qantas is facing stiffer competition and falling yields, and on the other hand, Qantas pilots want a career structure and are concerned at the promotion of Jetstar at the expense of Qantas.
As one pilot said yesterday: “Pilots will give a three-year wage freeze worth approximately $100 million for the three years plus other offsets for an integrated career structure in the Qantas group. But Joyce won’t talk.”
In a report by Merrill Lynch last week, the conclusion was that Qantas was one of the most expensive airlines in the region.
Qantas pilots and engineers currently have wage claims but are offering no productivity gains. Qantas says this translates into a 25 per cent rise in pilot costs over three years and 36 per cent for engineers.
However, it could be argued that the lack of productivity by Qantas pilots is due to Qantas having the wrong aircraft and too many different types, many of which are old. And there's a surplus of pilots due to work being given to Jetstar. Thirdly, there's the company’s refusal to offer any incentive for pilots to take leave with some benefits or redundancies.
Industrial action will be tough for customers to swallow - should it eventually take place - given the company’s decision to run down the brand, both domestically and internationally. Throwing strikes into the mix will only add to the diminishing perception of Qantas.
[email protected]

[SIUYA]

I'm a bit confused here...

ramble on rambles on about the 'special' [QF] cabin staff attitude that seems so particular to QF when:

'...you ask for appear in the galley to ask for a drink, or have forgotten what was on the menu.'

Perhaps it was the number of 'pre galley-sortie' drinks that RO had consumed that made him/her forget what was on the menu...I don't know. Who gives a sh1t? Ever think that you were annoying the hell out of the crew by behaving as you did ramble on? :ugh:

Oragputi has a rant about also having:

'...unfortunately experienced it (for the last time I add), just disgraceful/ no idea / cranky grandmas and ladyboys. the catering crap, poor aircraft interior and IFE and the tickets well overpriced! Sorry I maybe shooting from the hip but I am a full fair paying punter and it should matter! [sic]'

Shooting from the lip more accurately summarises Orangputi's complaint about his/her unfortunate experience. Glad to know that you won't be on the same flights as me in future Orangputi, now that you've crossed-off QF from your Christmas card list. That is a BIG relief (for QF CC too). :p

Don't let the door bang you on the arse on your way out!

Framer voices opinion about QF, and that:

'...It is a bit rough now days I agree. I caught a 76 last week (economy) and the crew were bordering on surly. Definately not cheeful and helpful [sic]. When I asked for a drink the response was juuuuust inside downright rude. The crew I was near were a couple of blokes in late forties, couple of women in late forties or early fifties and I couldn't help thinking to myself " If this is all a bit too tiring for you, bugger off and get another job 'cause you're making my day slightly worse"

The flight was fine but the clapped out IFE screen at an 80 degree angle from my seat about two meters away was a dissapointment. Definately not worth the money.[sic]'

Wow.........serious customer service stuff there (NOT) by the sounds of things. Come on, admit it Framer, you ended up being ill-tempered yourself as a result of your self-confessed QF 'bad hair event', didn't you?

Did you lodge a complaint with QF Framer? You can, you know! See Qantas Customer Charter (http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/airlines/customer-charter/global/en)

Framer continues at post#102:

'...I even think that the attitudes of the cabin crew can be traced back to management style......to a degree. I understand that they may be annoyed with some of their conditions etc, but I also think that the individuals are responsible for creating the atmosphere on board and that it takes professionalism to hide away their frustrations and create that atmosphere.....or at least not create the opposite. If it's got to the stage where they are so angry that they are incapable of doing that, then I will fly with a different airline where things have not reached that stage. Not having a go at the crew, just how I see it. Sad really.'

Yes, subjective, pernickity, pedantic generalisations such as those expressed above are bloody sad! Get a bloody life for God's sake.

And (disbelief here):

'Not having a go at the crew, just how I see it.'

Huh? :eek: Liar liar pants on fire.

You DID have a go at the crew Framer, in a very offensive manner too:

'The crew I was near were a couple of blokes in late forties, couple of women in late forties or early fifties and I couldn't help thinking to myself " If this is all a bit too tiring for you, bugger off and get another job 'cause you're making my day slightly worse" [sic]

From the sounds of things Framer, I'd say the crew were thinking exactly the same sentiments about you. :=

All I can conclude is that ramble on, Orangputi and Framer must be travelling on a completely different QF than I am as a full fare-paying punter, because I've yet to encounter the cabin crew conduct that is adversely implied by those three posters.

What standard unit said! If you don't like QF ramble on, Oranputi or Framer then there's a pretty easy solution, and that's for you to choose an alternative means of transport!' :zzz:

As Sunfish says in post#813 at http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/429209-qf-lame-eba-negotiations-begin-41.html, the QF product can be judged as '...stale and overpriced'. Maybe so, but it remains my choice for the places that I need to go, when I need to go to them, and it's a hell of a lot better than its bastard offshoot Jet*.

Try travelling with that outfit ramble on, Orangputi and Framer, if you haven't already done so. That'll REALLY give you something to complain about. :{

Rant over.

[framer]

SIUYA,
You DID have a go at the crew Framer
fair enough, I'l take that. I probably should have said something along the lines of ' I don't want to tar all CC with the same brush or detract from the efforts of the CC who maintain a positive attitude'.
But in a very offensive manner too is a bit over the top in my opinion. The reality is that this crew created a negative environment onboard and failed to maintain basic manners even when he pax were perfectly polite and calm and it happens more often now than it used to, if you are offended by this thats fine, remember, there is nothing wrong with being offended every now and then, same as being happy or angry, just make sure you don't focus heavily on it if you want to be pleasant company for those around you :) Have a good one mate.

[SIUYA]

framer...

You said:

'...I don't want to tar all CC with the same brush or detract from the efforts of the CC who maintain a positive attitude'.

However, you go on to justify your previous post by saying:

'...The reality is that this crew [my bolding] created a negative environment onboard and failed to maintain basic manners blah blah blah...'

In the post that I referred to, you said:

'The crew [my bolding] I was near were a couple of blokes in late forties, couple of women in late forties or early fifties and I couldn't help thinking to myself " If this is all a bit too tiring for you, bugger off and get another job 'cause you're making my day slightly worse" [sic]

I think you need to say that in your opinion, the crewmembers that you were near created a negative opinion, rather than tarring the entire crew with the same brush.

I'm certainly hope that you followed your own advice and contained your 'bugger off' attitude to those around you at the time so that they had a pleasant trip.

Have a good one mate.

I will, thank you very much. You too. ;)

[Sunfish]

I've had the same negative experience on Qantas.

It started with an underwhelming business class trip to LAX and has been followed by a succession of domestic flights with less than stellar crew attitudes, let alone service.

To be fair, flashes of the "old" helpful, tactful, skillful Qantas service sometimes breaks through, like when stupid Sunfish was late for a flight............"You don't need to run Mr. Sunfish because the aircraft can't leave without me and I'll be walking behind you."

However the corporate dead hand seems to be squashing the life out of the airline and the crews can't keep from acting out their frustration sometimes.

[33 Disengage]

Mr Joyce has made a mess of running the "Qantas Group" so far. Share price has plummeted, no dividend, at war with 34,000 of it's 35,000 employees, over $80 million of fines for corrupt management practices, poor aircraft fleet mix, lost premium brand advantage status to Virgin Australia etc, etc.

How about managing Australian Qantas well, before worrying about starting an expensive, risky Singaporean Qantas?

[The Green Goblin]

Let me guess, the 777 will be the perfect fit for the new singaporean Qantas. The company will then compare how efficient it is compared to Australian Qantas and use it as an excuse to wind it down further.....:yuk:

[rodchucker]

Well this should be fun, the decaying Rat competing with SQ on their home turf. Wonder what hallucinogenic medication the RAT Execs are on because I would sure like some.

It is laughable that a review to revamp premium brand comes up with this outcome. They simply do not understand Brand value and obviously do not care.

How would you like to sit at the next Govt meeting where SQ ask for rights to the Pacific route. They must be laughing all the way to the bank and lining up their aircraft for redeployment.

Then again, seeing RAT Execs claiming to have some proprietary rights to OZ routes now seems to be fast losing any basis in fact and government tolerance must surely evaporate.

Dick Smith where are you!!

[framer]

I'm certainly hope that you followed your own advice and contained your 'bugger off' attitude to those around you at the time so that they had a pleasant trip.


Sure did, I take pride in doing it and consider it a skill :)

Let me guess, the 777 will be the perfect fit for the new singaporean Qantas. The company will then compare how efficient it is compared to Australian Qantas and use it as an excuse to wind it down further.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif

I hadn't thought of that but you're spot on, enough to make you chunder really.

[unionist1974]

So you would all like QF to fail , Sunfish and that idiot in BNE Brisby on Coolt would be overjoyed , well sunfish would but BSc might have an hangover when it wakes up without a job . And still cheering BS for his bitter tripe that he writes . Ah well , solidarity forever , solidarity forever , solidarity forever for the union makes us strong . Go comrades!

[the rim]

I think you have got it wrong mate....we dont want QF to fail we want it to continue and get better.But the way we see it is that the management want it to fail so they can get a new crew of pilots/engineers/flight attendents and ramp workers in at a lower wage to operate the airline.....same as jet*.Well from reading the posts on pprune I think it wont happen without a fight.
Mostly the guys and girls that work for QF are proud and willing to help ....sure you get the angry ones who have had a bad day but most want to be helpful...we ALL have tried to be resonable in our negoations but are constanly meet with NO's from the company.....as others have stated WTF is going on in the board room do they not read this forum[yes I know its a rumor forum]but its from the people who work at Qantas...and in most cases for a long time so WE know whats happening...come on get real and talk to the ALAEA and work something out before its too LATE

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Goodnight Ian.

[BrissySparkyCoit]

Unionist, if you think we want to see Qantas fail, then you are either deliberately misinterpreting our posts or you are just plain stupid.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Engineers, Pilots, Cabin Crew, Baggage Handlers.....we are in it for the long term. NONE of us want to see Qantas fail.

Some people, however, are in it for the short term, to screw as much as they can before they leave. There are people far higher up the ladder who are ensuring Qantas will fail.

[mikk_13]

If I were a clever CEO of EK, Singa, etihadit, and even Guitar, I would be looking at poaching the Q drivers.

Think about it, all it would take is being based at their original port, eg mel, syd, bne, offer them more coin and more days off, and hope to steal 70% of the A380, A330 and 747 drivers and you would shut Q down with in a couple of months. I am sure that a dead rat would mean massive increase in freq for these airlines so the work would be there for the new recruits if they pulled it off.

I would guess the money spent on poaching the drivers would be money well spent if your competition collapsed. How many A380 drivers would it take to stuff them up?

[Bigdog01]

Having been directly attacked by the Q EA negotiating team - answer is NO to anything put up. It seems apparent that they are on a course of self destruction.
They complain the International arm is loosing money, can't compete etc.
Domestic arm is suffering.
Regionals are lumbered in with J* in financial reports - supposedly doing well.
It would be nice to see the real status of J* as an item in the end of year report as a stand alone.
How many times do the J* pax get on forwarded to their destination by the full service arm. Big bonus there, how would the premium pax react if it went the other way - not well.
J* being handed routes and aircraft to forge ahead - of course not.
Could they have survived if the 767's went there instead of the 330's to open the cheap holiday markets - I think not.
Q now trying another venture, meanwhile all others if you believe the PR machine failing, lets stick our fingers in the FI/FO mining area in WA.
So now we have a finger (at least I think its a finger) in all pies:
International
Domestic
LCC
Regionals
Charter
and of course freight (hope they made more money than the fines).

Would it ever be returned to the people I think not as Fed and State Gov't selling of all assets to bolster the budgets due to same management skills. All tared by same brush. Why do these ordinary working people need more money (wage rises & job security). Could it be as reported in a small section in a sydney paper 1/2 million people in default on their electricity bills. An essential service after being privatized is increasing in cost to the consumer at an alarming rate. Another rise in QLD of 17% June 1st, must be to cover the execs wages. Probably mates of those who sold the service to them.

[TIMA9X]

Qantas staff and management on collision course over outsourcing and safety (http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-staff-and-management-on-collision-course-over-outsourcing-and-safety-20110522-1eyws.html)

The levels of toxicity between staff and Qantas will hit new highs this week if the international pilots union lodges an application with Fair Work Australia to allow it to instigate protected industrial action.
If the application proceeds, and is followed in four weeks with a ballot by the pilots to take action, it will be the first industrial action taken by Qantas pilots in 45 years.
For the pilots to reach this point shows how far the relationship between staff and management has deteriorated. An application is expected to be lodged by the Australian and International Pilots Association tomorrow.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The first stage of industrial action is expected to include a work-to-rule campaign and an overtime ban, which would result in big disruptions as nothing would run on time.
A similar campaign was conducted in 2008 when the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association worked to rule, which resulted in widespread delays on the airline's services. The engineers association is on the brink of a new campaign after winning approval from the Fair Work Australia earlier this month.
It opted to delay any industrial action for the next few weeks after discovering that the airline had some "unexpected aircraft unserviceabilities" of which many are engine-related.
The pilots are seeking guaranteed flying hours after the expansion of the airline's budget carrier, Jetstar, lowered labour costs.
The big concern of the pilots and engineers is the trend by the company to outsource jobs.
For instance, Jetstar flight attendants who are hired in Thailand are paid a fraction of the Australian minimum salary. Jetstar pilots are paid less than Qantas pilots and have fewer conditions, and the company is outsourcing some of its maintenance.
Nobody denies the Qantas boss, Alan Joyce, inherited a tough gig: record high fuel prices, a blowout in debt from the need to replace its ageing fleet over the next decade, vigorous competition on the international sector from carriers such as Emirates and a share price that is trading just above its issue price more than 15 years ago.
Qantas has one of the highest cash operating expenditures among regional peers. To date, it has been able to offset this with its yields - an industry gauge of profitability.

But its yields are under attack. Intensifying competition in the shape of lower prices, better-quality products and a perception that the company is running down the Qantas brand, is forcing those yields down.
With some of its bigger institutional shareholders putting pressure on the Qantas board to restore dividends and lift the share price, Joyce and the board have used wages and outsourcing as a key way to cut costs and maintain margins and yields.
But Joyce's handling of staff and the disengagement and poor morale that is rife throughout the company cannot be underestimated. Nor can the erosion of customer service in an effort to cut costs.
Who will win the industrial dispute will boil down to who plays the PR game best. Customers hate disruptions to their travel plans, even by a couple of hours. If they think the EBA claims by the international pilots are outlandish then they will lose patience with an airline that is already suffering from brand damage after a string of midair emergencies last year and a decision by Qantas to reduce the quality of service to a point where it is being destroyed by better product being flown more directly to more destinations.
However, if they share the view that the quality and safety of Qantas is in jeopardy - and there is a growing belief that it is - they will be sympathetic to the unions in their endeavours.
One pilot said: "Qantas pilots don't believe a word that comes out of the words of management. They have been lied to for too many years … even Jetstar pilots have come to realise the same thing. No-one is safe from this rapacious management, least of all the Qantas safety culture.'' Tough words that weren't helped by news the company intends to introduce a business class product with Jetstar in Asia rather than Qantas.
With so much discontent it is not surprising the results of a staff ''engagement'' survey have been suppressed because they were worse than the previous survey some 12 months ago.
What is fascinating about the industrial relations disputes is that the toxicity has spread inside the company. One of the key architects
of Qantas's industrial relations strategy is an outsider, former ACTU official Ian Oldmeadow, who is renowned in union circles for being confrontational.
During calm times it makes the job of a human resources manager easy to outsource key aspects of industrial relations but when things turn sour, as they have now, it highlights the need for internal control of the policy.
As one staff member said: "Qantas always cries poor, however, they pay over $10 million a year on consultant fees. There is joke inside the business that Qantas is a consultants' Disneyland - 'We make Your Dreams of Greed Come True'.''

(my bold)


Wow, Great Job Adele. :D

[fishers.ghost]

Scott Rochfort

May 23, 2011 The already fractious relationship between Qantas and its 32,500-strong workforce is set to be tested even further amid talk the airline has hired the services of a management consultancy company known for its radical surgery methods.


The airline, which for years has used Boston Consulting Group, is rumoured to have invited Bain & Company into its offices to prepare a few pie charts.
The appointment of Bain is not likely to go down well with Qantas's heavily unionised workforce. The blurb on the management consultancy's website notes: ''In this challenging environment, airlines can take steps to improve their business - but it requires decisive action.

''Bain's approach to consulting - focused on strategies with the highest impact and effective implementation - is well-suited to the airline industry, where there is no time to waste.''
Bain boasts that the returns of its airline clients ''have outpaced the S&P by 4 to 1''. Bain might be able to apply some of the expertise it built up helping the now defunct Ansett.
''Bain's expertise in airline consulting includes work in strategy, mergers and acquisitions, turnarounds, fleet and network optimisation, pricing, labour relations, operations restructuring and business plan formation,'' says the website.
Dont expect to see the results of the last staff enegagement survey.It was worse than last year's and is being repressed

[fishers.ghost]

The media is catching on.The story of mismanagment by Qantas is finally gaining traction.Perhaps the tide of public opinion will turn now that the truth is being exposed

[assasin8]

You mean we're not engaged? Gee, who would have thought and even after those lovely breakfasts! Tea and scones anyone...anyone?:hmm:

[packrat]

It has been suggested that the only reason these surveys are done is to gauge how successful managment are at pissing off employees.
So far its about the only thing they are having any success with
We are all really really pissed off

[-438]

Does anyone think that these so called industrial relations consultants that come at great expense aim for a fast resolution to EBA negotiations?
They drag these negotiations out as long as they can. They aim to create as much friction between management and employees as possible.
Qantas management are being taken for an expensive ride and aren't smart enough to realise it.
First aim for prospective consultants is to win work from a large organisation.
Once hired their aim is to convince the organisation of their importance and recieve on going work or be put on a full time retainer.
If negotiations are over quickly, consultants do not seem as necessary and do not receive the vast sums of money they desire.

[airtags]

Bain will do nothing more than continue the current venomous agenda and prop up the ailing Exec M'ment with a swag of reports to say they are doing a good job.

Of course for the ailing Exec M'ment, Bain will in time be another "RR pass the parcel of blame" when it all crashes and burns.

Every corner of the business (even the outsourced cleaners) are totally dismayed - even at the height of Rupert's handiwork with the British newspapers there was not this level of disengagement and distrust.

There are millions that can be saved and put on the bottom line by 30 June - all it takes is a little empowerment and a management that shows some genuine respect for the skills, experience and passion that the majority of employees have.

But like most, I am not going to go the extra mile today if all it will do is prop up the wallets of Joyce Worthless and Co., who have no passion for the airline other than their own self applause.

AT

Wonder if Bain will suggest giving the likes of Oldmeadow and the other hangers on the boot in order to save a few $............ probably not.

[Sunfish]

Guys, consultants are often hired for reasons other than those stated.

The first thing that Bain will do, if it is true that they have been hired, will be to do a very fast appreciation of the skills and capabilities of the senior executive team. They will do this automatically, no matter what instructions to the contrary they may have received.

If they decide that AJ is not up to it, the Chairman will receive a telephone call.

Done it myself years ago.

[TIMA9X]

The airline, which for years has used Boston Consulting Group, is rumoured to have invited Bain & Company into its offices to prepare a few pie charts.Err, Just a thought; have Bain & Company been handed a poison chalice to cover for a few colourful airline exec identies from the past who had got it so wrong over the last 10 years?

I smell some rats ducking for cover. :rolleyes:

[33 Disengage]

Can you do it again?

Make the call, tell Clifford that "Joyce Worthless and Co" don't cut the mustard. While you're at it, tell Clifford to close the door behind him!

[Keg]

I'm sure people will be thrilled with this quote from an article titled 'resolving the CEOs dilemma (http://www.bain.com/bainweb/Publications/article_detail.asp?id=27282&menu_url=articles.asp&origin=bainweb_homepage)'.


The first priority is simply to survive in the job.

:ugh: :rolleyes:

I always felt that if you did your job well you were probably going to survive without too many dramas- unless your boss decided to outsource you because he found someone cheaper off shore.

[TIMA9X]

I liked this bit,
The second priority is building the business and increasing shareholder value.

Currently the Q board have got it backwards, starting to feel sorry for the "yes men" who have to follow the orders for implementation. I suppose the question is now, has this rumoured invitation of Bain & Co been requested by an institutional investor/s?

[Sunfish]

Keg, good article. It's a hard job because there is no one to turn to...just you. Bit like a pilots job really..

[surfside6]

Joyce is CEO in name only.
Clifford is the puppet master.
The leprechaun just does as he is told
Thats why he was given the job.He is compliant
If Joyce has any spine that must grate

[Clipped]

AAhhh, Clifford.

Posted elsewhere but,

SYDNEY, Australia, January 4, 2009 - Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. ("KKR") today announced that it has appointed Leigh Clifford, current Chairman of Qantas Airways Limited and former Chief Executive of Rio Tinto, as a Senior Advisor to the Firm.

"Leigh brings a global network, management acumen and experience and an understanding of public policy. He will be an immediate asset to KKR's Australian and international operations and we are delighted he is joining our team," George R. Roberts, Co-Founder of KKR said today.

Mr. Clifford, 61, has more than 30 years of corporate experience within Australia and internationally. He is currently Chairman of the Board of Qantas Airways Limited, a position he has held since November 2007. He was Chief Executive of Rio Tinto from April 2000 to April 2007, stepping down from the Board on April 30, 2007. His executive and board career with Rio Tinto spanned 37 years and included operational and marketing roles in Australia and overseas. His role of Senior Advisor to KKR is effective from January 1, 2009.

"KKR has a proven track record of building long-term, sustainable value in the enterprises in which it invests while also delivering solid returns for investors. Given the demand for both capital and operational expertise right now, I am proud to join a team equipped to deliver both, and I look forward to helping identify opportunities for investors while partnering with managers to strengthen businesses in Australia," Mr. Clifford said.

Since 2006, KKR has been building its Australian franchise, led by KKR Member Justin Reizes. The Firm has two investments in Australia: BIS Industries Ltd. (BIS), a leading outsourced supplier of on-site and off-site materials handling and logistics services to the minerals, metals, and coal mining sectors; and Seven Media Group, one of Australia's leading media companies. KKR acquired both companies in 2006.

Mr. Reizes said: "Leigh's appointment introduces to Australia our global strategy of adding highly experienced senior advisors in our operating countries. Our senior advisors are part of our integrated model of value creation. They complement the expertise of KKR investment professionals and our operational executives at KKR Capstone by providing us with additional strategic counsel. Leigh's operational experience brings with it immediate and valuable insight for our portfolio companies in Australia, particularly BIS."

Mr. Clifford lives in Melbourne, Australia and is also Director of Barclays Bank plc and the Murdoch Children's Research Institute as well as a Member of the Bechtel Board of Counselors. Formerly, he served as Chairman of the Council of Mining and Metals, the Coal Industry Advisory Board of the International Energy Agency and as a Director of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering and a Master of Engineering Science from the University of Melbourne.

Mr. Clifford joins KKR's expanding global network of Senior Advisors, including: Sanjiv Ahuja, former Chief Executive Officer of Orange SA; Sir John Bond, former Group Chairman of HSBC Holdings plc; John E. Bryson, former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Edison International and former Chairman of the California State Water Resources Control Board; Liu Chuanzhi, founder of the Lenovo Group and President of Legend Holdings; David Cote, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Honeywell; Bruce W. Duncan, Chairman of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide; George M.C. Fisher, former Chairman and CEO of Eastman Kodak and Motorola; Joe W. Forehand, former Chairman and CEO of Accenture; Yoshiharu Fukuhara, Honorary Chairman of Shiseido Co., Ltd; Paul M. Hazen, former Chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo; R. Clint Johnstone, former Director and CFO of the Bechtel Group; Louis Kang; Paul Norris, non-executive Chairman and former CEO of W.R. Grace & Co.; Gianemilio Osculati, Chairman of Valore S.p.A. and former Chairman of McKinsey's Mediterranean Complex; Lee R. Raymond, former chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil; Edward Tian Suning, Founder and Chairman of China Broadband Capital Partners, L.P., and Vice Chairman and former CEO of China Netcom Group.

About KKR
Established in 1976, KKR is a leading global alternative asset manager. The core of the Firm's franchise is sponsoring and managing funds that make private equity investments in North America, Europe, and Asia. Throughout its history, KKR has brought a long-term investment approach to portfolio companies, focusing on working in partnership with management teams and investing for future competitiveness and growth. Additional funds that KKR sponsors include KKR Private Equity Investors, L.P. (NYSE Euronext Amsterdam: KPE), a permanent capital fund that invests in KKR-identified investments; and two credit strategy funds, KKR Financial Holdings LLC (NYSE: KFN) and the KKR Strategic Capital Funds, which make investments in debt transactions. KKR has offices in New York, Menlo Park, San Francisco, Houston, Washington, DC, London, Paris, Hong Kong, Beijing, Tokyo and Sydney. More information about KKR is available at: KKR: Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts: Henry Kravis & George Roberts: Who Are We.

Where GD failed, is there a bargain (Airline) to be had?