Future of Qantas in jeopardy: Joyce (Merged) [Archive]

TIMA9X

26th May 2011, 15:55

Mr Joyce labelled both the engineers' and pilots' union leaders as "rogues" So sad. AJ these "Rogues"where loveable for 80 years until your current lot of managers stepped in with a set of dodgy calculators.

When J* was a pup the Q PR machine spouted the brands would never clash. In reality, it appears the opposite has happened. Turning on the pilots & engineers is not the reason the Q bottom line is in a mess, (creatively speaking,) it's the way it has been managed. I believe the media is a wake up to that this time. I thought Richard Woodward came over well on the 7.30 report.
This will quickly become a huge international aviation story with a continued following, spread far and wide.

Qantas pilots stand to pocket $200,000 each | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/travel/news/pilots-stand-to-pocket-200000-each/story-e6frg8ro-1226063782325)

and here already,

The Himalayan Times : Qantas pilots may stage first strike in 45 years - Detail News : Nepal News Portal (http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Qantas+pilots+may+stage+first+strike+i n+45+years&NewsID=289204)

Funny enough, back in Ireland EI management are taking a different view on a similar situation. EI was a basket case for years until this CEO came along with a fresh approach that dogged the airline since the1990s. The CEO at EI has quickly gained worldwide respect and is reported on in all the worlds aviation press, he has no blinkers and comes over positive with his staff which is quite a change from EIs past in IR. Perhaps AJ should take a look back in the old country for a few other clues in dealing with IR situations..

Aer Lingus won't touch staff for now - International - IOL | Breaking News | South Africa News | World News | Sport | Business | Entertainment | IOL.co.za (http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/aer-lingus-won-t-touch-staff-for-now-1.1065538)

Aer Lingus won't touch staff for now

May 6 2011 at 07:07pm

Comment on this story (http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/aer-lingus-won-t-touch-staff-for-now-1.1065538#comments_start)
http://www.iol.co.za/polopoly_fs/aerlingus-1.1015298%21/image/2587882286.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300/2587882286.jpg REUTERS
Ground crew parking an Aer Lingus aircraft at Dublin Airport in the Republic of Ireland.

Ireland's Aer Lingus will look at trying to get reductions in airport charges and fuel costs before it considers another round of job and pay cuts, the airline said on Friday.
Faced with “awful” economic conditions in its home market, higher fuel costs and constant pressure from its larger and leaner rival Ryanair, Aer Lingus is considering ramping up existing cost-cutting measures to cement its hard-won return to profit.
Chief Executive Christoph Mueller told reporters on the sidelines of the company's annual meeting that the group was not about to replicate its existing cost-cutting programme, known as “Greenfield”, which has saved it 72 million euros but triggered an expensive bout of industrial action earlier in the year.
my bold

Christoph Mueller (German I believe) is handling the situation with a fresh approach, looking elsewhere, moving on from the old way of doing things, namely pointing a finger (sledge hammer) at the staff.

Qs management focus is wrong for the current climate with competition.
AJ, The unions are willing to talk, why can't you? Why does it have to be a war?
Hard ball tactics avoidable, outdated and totally unnecessary.
Update Q shareprice $2.06 as of 25-05-11

Sunfish

26th May 2011, 17:50

It's quite interesting reading all of Margaret Jacksons stuff --- about the Board fearlessly planning the future of the airline and being responsible for everything.

....and now the pilots and engineers are going to destroy everything with their bare hands???

Some Board.

opalops

26th May 2011, 21:32

They are demands the company cannot agree to and they are demands that will result in job losses in this company," he said. Mr Joyce labelled both the engineers' and pilots' union leaders as "rogues" who the company was "going to have to stand up to".
Qantas puts the cost of the demands at more than $300 million but the pilots' association says the figure is more like $90 million.

Read more: Qantas future in jeopardy over $300m demands: Joyce (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/qantas-future-in-jeopardy-over-300m-demands-joyce-20110527-1f6yk.html#ixzz1NUok3NQJ)

Mr Joyce I thought this dispute was about a job security clause in the EBA an not monetary issue ????? :ugh:So what is

Ero-plano

26th May 2011, 21:50

Lies, Lies, Lies........
2.5% a year and job security - Thats the headline.
Stay strong lads, Good luck - everyone in Aus Aviation is standing behind you.:D

TBM-Legend

26th May 2011, 21:50

Interesting; Delta Airlines gets into financial trouble the employees chip in and buy the company a B767. Qantas starts doing it tough some employees start actions to make it worse.:ooh:

Swimbetweentheflags

26th May 2011, 22:21

Way to go Alan :D
Stop your whinging and get on with the job of steering the ship.
Everyone is tired of seeing you in the media crying foul over everything be it
fuel,competition,staff, unions yadda yadda !!!
Why is he so hell bent on locking horns with his own staff !! :(
Just get on with it Alan or hand over the ship to someone else and fast. !!
Iceberg at 12 O'clock !! :eek:

Terrey

26th May 2011, 22:43

TBM-Legend.

Completely different senario. Delta had LEADERSHIP ! See what happens when you have staff on side! They buy you an aircraft. They didn't have management that were trying to sell out their jobs to the lowest bidder. They "Worked Together" to turn things around. They didn't engage the staff as the enemy.

It's time to go...........Alan.

peuce

26th May 2011, 23:10

You can make fun of the CEO all you like .... but the punter only sees what's on the 7.30 report!

This is a PR battle ... not a battle over who's right or wrong :suspect:

Nuthinondaclock

26th May 2011, 23:15

TBM; To what do you base your statement about Qantas doing it tough?

stewser89

26th May 2011, 23:23

gotta agree with peuce

VH-Cheer Up

26th May 2011, 23:33

On CH7 Sunrise this morning Mel quoted AJ saying that under a new wage claim Qantas pilots would TAKE HOME an EXTRA $200K per annum. That is either very slack journalism, or else deliberately mischeivious and misleading misinformation.

It all feels like shades of the way pilots were painted as overpaid bus drivers by Messrs Hawke, Abeles and Strong 22 long years ago. The company is using the same PR game plan dusted off from 1989.

Funny how after any serious e.g (QF32) or even minor incident the pax all come out gushing that they don't care what the pilots get paid because their lives are in the pilots hands.

I didn't notice anybody disembarked QF32 complimenting the poisonous leprechaun on his stunning performance.

QFdude

26th May 2011, 23:50

According to the figures AJ has delivered last night the pilots are after $317m, which represents a 26% increase.

This then means the average QF Longhaul pilots package at present is around $730k and at the completion of the EA term will be close to $920k. Please feel free to correct my figures if necessary.

I never knew life was so good.....and I bet 1700 others didn't either!!!

Can we please work on dispelling this sought of cr@p any time soon?

brown_hornet

27th May 2011, 01:01

Oh and what is with the Chief Pilot sending out emails being a "company man"? Dude, aren't you meant to be on the pilots side?

My thoughts exactly. One email from AIPA, one email from the CP, one email from Aipa.....it's like a game of tennis. I wonder if the CP wasn't sitting there in his office and was just an ol' ordinary line pilot, what his thoughts really would be. I also like the reference to the fact that the lack of performance of Qantas International cannot be blamed on mismanagement or Jetstar....wtf:ugh:

As for the Sunrise shambles, I'm glad I missed watching it this morning for the sake of my tv living to see another day. What a joke.:yuk:

The Green Goblin

27th May 2011, 01:31

Is it just me or is it ironic that QF HQ is on 'coward' street?

Joyce, stop being such a bloody coward. Get out there, engage your staff, look them in the eye and show some leadership. Take Qantas where everyone wants it to go. FORWARD! Not one Australian (even your opposition VA) want to see it go down the tubes. Follow JBs lead and do something constructive.

Everyone in the company is desperate to feel proud again, they want Qantas to succeed. You and your cronies are the ones who are causing this sham.

Buy some decent proven aeroplanes (777) piss off the dugong (convert the remaining orders for A350s to cover if the dreambreakers don't do what they are supposed to do, yes plan B I think it's called), get some 748s to compliment the 777s on the trunk routes, and invest in world class engineering facilities to attract contract work to cover your own maintenance and labour bills.

If you announced you were doing the above to revitalize the brand and asked for pay freezes, mark my words - most would be ecstatic and go on the ride with you. The staff just want some leadership.

Oh and announce you're freezing your own and executive pay and will only unfreeze it when you feel comfortable to reward your staff with their own increases.

That would be a pretty good olive branch to kick off the new Qantas.

The ball is in your court.

David75

27th May 2011, 02:12

The company needs to be made to understand that it will be held accountable for incorrect statements - add a new claim to the negotiations that a penalty of $100 per employee will be made for any incorrect claim made to the media. At least the CEO will have an incentive to tell the truth.

rodchucker

27th May 2011, 02:35

Yeah but he keeps getting away with it and if the pilots don't get their ****e together they will reap what they sow. Nothing.

For the life of me so many of us are exasperated because they are just taking this with no response and we dont understand why???

Get out there and get active PLEASE.

Popgun

27th May 2011, 03:31

Until AIPA engage the services of top-notch, shrewd Public Relations consultancy the battle will never be won...

Punters will believe what they read in the press and see on the telly...

neville_nobody

27th May 2011, 04:25

Meanwhile the MUA are asking for 17% pay rise and knocked it back 15% with annual 4%!!!! I think QF might need a reality check somewhere in here.

Patrick has, in return, offered wage increases of 15 per cent over three years with annual 4 per cent increases in return for productivity concessions and a further 1 per cent annually based on meeting new safety and customer metrics.

Patrick's punches telegraphed to union by a three-year-old | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/patricks-punches-telegraphed-to-union-by-a-three-year-old/story-e6frg9lx-1226062252008)

FGD135

27th May 2011, 04:59

Drop the wages claim.

QF pilots are desperately claiming that it is "nothing to do with salaries and is only about the off-shoring".

How is anybody supposed to believe that when the media are presenting it as basically a wages claim? This is not the fault of the media. Whilst there is a wages component to the demands then the media are entitled to report it that way.

Shout as loudly as you like that it is "not about the salaries" but nobody will believe you.

Drop the wages claim.

Ngineer

27th May 2011, 05:22

This thread could have been better named "the future of management in trouble".

A good manager would have had this entire mess put to bed by now.

Chadzat

27th May 2011, 05:43

FGD135- their wages claim is already BELOW CPI. So they should just take a pay freeze because the media cant operate a calculator properly or indeed do any research whatsoever?

You guys need to get some facts out there in the public domain, even by starting on pprune so that those of us who support your cause know what to say when non-aviation mates ask "just what is all this about"?

Things such as a succinct list of what you are asking for, how this compares to other airlines in the industry and exactly what it is projected to cost.

teresa green

27th May 2011, 05:52

Quite right Terry, when Menadue was boss and the company was up against a wall due to a savage downturn in this country, the whole staff had meetings over a period of time in the hangers. They came up with ideas to save the company money, from turning off unnessary power, to volunteers working for nix on days off. Why? because Menidue was honest, decent, cared for his staff, and everybody was desperate to keep the company going. No shareholders of course then, but a boss that gave it his all, so the staff did to. Air New Zealand has also now done the same thing with a boss that inspires. It can be done with QF, IF the right boss is brought in. Pay anything to Borgetti, but get him back. And shaft the board that sacked him. He has the ability to unite the staff, listen to the problems, and meet and compromise with various sections of the company. QF staff don't need to buy a 767, they just need Borgetti back, thats even better. Start saving.

unionist1974

27th May 2011, 07:10

tg , If only it was that simple , I don't know how many posters have been tracking the waterfront dispute . The MUA , a Union steeped in militant history and great leaders , Fitzgibbon , Tas Bull come to mind and many others , backed away when facing a lockout . Yes , the employer was prepared to shut the operation down take note cybrspace militants . So , beware , do not become so cute about all this , remember old trade union tactics always have a job to return to.

FGD135

27th May 2011, 08:31

So they should just take a pay freeze because the media cant operate a calculator properly or indeed do any research whatsoever?

You're missing the point. The QF pilots are being slaughtered in the court of public opinion because of how the wages claim is being perceived - and this will not change. Sooner or later, somebody will rerun the "glorified busdrivers" line.

Only by dropping the wages claim (for now) will anybody listen to your pleas re off-shoring.

You can always come back to the wages claim later. The priority right now is the off-shoring.

To leave the wages claim in there is dumb and invites the slaughter to continue. The media and public will soon lose interest - their minds will be made up (that it is all about the pay).

HotDog

27th May 2011, 08:45

I doubt if you'll get Borghetti back from Virgin. Richard Branson will make sure that won't happen!

h.o.t.a.s.

27th May 2011, 08:47

FGD135 is correct.

We MUST remove the ability for management to misrepresent the pay claims.

At the very least, drop/'rejig' the payload band tables and remove any of the staff travel claims which management say are inflating the figures.

Leave the 2.5%, which at current CPI rates seems to be a 0.5% to 1% pay cut each year in real terms.

A Job Security/Scope Clause is NOT going to come cheap!

Tankengine

27th May 2011, 08:54

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "Future of Joyce in Jeopardy : Qantas":E

Capt Kremin

27th May 2011, 09:02

It is still early in this dispute. One of the reasons '89 went so badly was the lack of a fall-back position.

I believe AIPA would have that as a fall-back position that could be easily implemented if required, and it would leave QF nowhere to go.

Done too early however, it would leave AIPA also with nowhere to go. I believe it is far too early in this dispute however to start reducing claims. AIPA would also be waiting to see the result of the ballot from its own members.

assasin8

27th May 2011, 09:08

On the subject of "public perception", the ninemsn homepage currently has a poll on "do Qantas Pilots earn too much?"...
ninemsn - Hotmail, Messenger, News, Sport, Celebrity, Finance, Travel, Cars, Movies, Shopping (http://ninemsn.com.au/?ocid=hmlogout)

The "NO" vote is ahead!

Taildragger67

27th May 2011, 09:53

That article linked to in The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/travel/news/pilots-stand-to-pocket-200000-each/story-e6frg8ro-1226063782325) - it's by 'Joe Hildebrand'.

That name seems to have been at the top of several very anti-pilot, pro-management articles in a number of Murdoch papers lately (Aus, Tele, Herald Sun).

Conspiracy theories... Murdoch's been down this route before... could he be engineering something again?

Should this Hildebrand character perhaps be engaged directly and have it explained to him where he is being taken for a complete patsy by management?

In this article (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/pilots-stand-to-pocket-200000-each/story-e6frf7jo-1226063731881), 'Joe' claims that An average 747 pilot earns $350,000 a year and the top pilots earn up to $500,000.

airbus_galley_girl

27th May 2011, 11:46

By Terry Cook and James Cogan
27 May 2011

Qantas Group, which operates Qantas and the low-cost carrier Jetstar, appears intent on provoking a confrontation with its workforce in order to implement an agenda of expanding its Asian-based subsidiaries and cutting costs in its Australian operations.

Qantas has rejected out-of-hand the request by the three trade unions covering its Australian pilots, engineers and ground crew for a “job security” clause in new agreements. The clause would require that the company pay any crew on a Qantas-badged flight, or workers undertaking Qantas work on the ground, the same wages and entitlements specified in the agreement. The stipulation would not only apply to Australian contractors, but the pilots and cabin crews of overseas subsidiaries that operate Qantas services.

In one of the most belligerent responses, Qantas chief pilot Peter Wilson declared on May 18 that the job security claim was “damaging to the interests of Qantas and a threat to the real, long-term job security of 35,000 employees in the Qantas Group”. Qantas CEO Alan Joyce told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “7.30 Report” last night: “There are certain demands I cannot concede to because it will endanger the survival of the company into the long run. It is at that stage. Our international business is losing money. Our international business, if these demands are met, will go backwards even further.”

Qantas is preparing what one commentator described as a “seismic shift” in its global strategy. It is reportedly looking to establish a new subsidiary operating out of Singapore that would provide the same premium services as Qantas itself. The company refused to deny the report. Qantas spokesperson Olivia Wirth told the Australian “an international review” was underway and “everything is on the table.”

Qantas already has a joint venture, low-cost subsidiary in Singapore, Jetstar Asia. The carrier competes for cheap flight business in the Asia market, particularly to China, and provides flights to and from Australia via Singapore using lower cost Singapore-based pilots and crew. Qantas also has a wholly-owned New Zealand-based subsidiary, Jetconnect, whose staff are paid New Zealand wages and conditions to operate budget Qantas flights in and out of Australia. Jetstar Pacific, another joint venture, operates out of Vietnam.

The move to establish a premium carrier in Asia represents a qualitative step in the company’s gradual transfer of its core operations out of Australia. Amid discussion that a number of major world airlines will inevitably go the wall due to intense cost and competitive pressures, the aim of Qantas’s corporate strategy was reported last month to be “ending its geographical isolation” in Australia. It plans to survive by gaining a significant share of the expanding number of full-service flights throughout the Asian region, which cater for a growing upper-middle class and corporate elite.

Qantas’s move to Asia will be accelerated by the announcement this week that one of its major rivals, Singapore Airlines, is moving to establish a low-cost subsidiary that will directly compete for Jetstar Asia’s business.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) predicts that by 2014 there will be 800 million extra passengers globally, of whom 360 million will be flying Asia-Pacific routes. Other sources forecast that outbound traffic from China alone is set to rise by about 16 percent a year until 2020. Singapore, which has short-haul connections to China, Japan, India and throughout the region, currently has 11 million arrivals per year and expects these to increase to 17 million in 2015.

A full service subsidiary in Singapore—possibly named Qantas Asia—would render redundant many aspects of Qantas’s Australian-based operations. It could take over existing routes between the island and Europe, with crews employed on lower Singapore conditions. The new airline could use Singapore crews to fly full services to Australia, and even lower-paid Thai crews on other Asian routes. Maintenance could be transferred to Asian sites.

Cost-cutting is also in store for the Australian operations, as Qantas and Jetstar face increasingly aggressive competition. Asian and Middle Eastern-based carriers that operate with lower costs are expanding their Australian customer base by offering attractive rates and services. Qantas’s share of international Australian passengers plummeted from 35 percent in 2003 to less than 20 percent in 2010. Even adding Jetstar and Jetstar Asia international flights, the Group’s market share was just 26.8 percent, down from 28.2 percent in 2009.

Virgin Airlines, the other major Australian-based carrier, has launched a challenge to Qantas’s dominance in the domestic business class trade. Virgin’s international head Richard Branson told the Business Spectator website this month that Qantas had been able to utilise $1.5 billion of income from business class passengers “to subsidise Jetstar and their economy class.” He added, “[W]e would like to take $300-$400 million of that away from them.”

Qantas has reportedly enlisted the services of consultancy firm Bain, which drew up the restructuring plans that were imposed at a number of American-based airlines, at the expense of wages, conditions and hundreds of jobs.

Thousands of Qantas workers—from pilots to baggage handlers—sense that an offensive is looming. Previous union agreements have enabled the Qantas Group to establish an international workforce employed on vastly divergent wages and conditions and transfer more and more of its services overseas. In 2008, 1,750 Australian Qantas staff were made redundant.

While the unions have insisted they will not accept an agreement that does not include job security, their entire record proves otherwise. From the 1989 pilots’ strike, to the bankruptcy of Ansett Airlines 10 years ago, to the acceptance of substandard conditions for Virgin and Jetstar crews, to the 2008 redundancies, the unions have collaborated with Australian airlines to cut costs and jobs.

At every point, the primary concern of the unions has been to protect the industry’s “international competitiveness.” In exchange, the unions have retained coverage of the remaining workforce and involvement in the multi-million dollar funds holding workers’ superannuation retirement benefits.

There is little doubt that the unions are working behind the scenes to convince Qantas to moderate its global reorientation by offering to slash their own members’ conditions. In mid-May, pilots union national president Barry Jackson stated: “If chief executive Alan Joyce and his executives sit down with pilots and other workers, there are any number of ways to achieve productivity gains without scrapping Qantas’s 90-year history and shifting overseas.”

Any concessions the unions give Qantas will only feed into setting lower benchmarks across the entire airline industry. Workers are being pitted against one another in a never-ending downward spiralling of conditions.

Qantas workers face decisive questions. While the company prepares its plans, the unions have diverted them into token threats of the limited industrial action that is permitted under the Labor government’s Fair Work Australia (FWA) industrial laws.

The union covering 1,700 Qantas pilots applied yesterday to the FWA tribunal to allow a ballot of its members for industrial action, a process that will take up to four weeks. The planned action will consist of two days of stopwork meetings and a “work-to-rule” campaign.

Last week, the engineers union, whose members had already voted for industrial action, called off a one-hour stoppage on the grounds that urgent maintenance had to be done to aircraft. It then suspended any threat of industrial action for four weeks.

The Transport Workers Union, which covers ground staff, is still in negotiations. The company has already made clear that it will use management to break any minimal industrial action by baggage handlers and ticketing staff.

The Gillard government stands ready to intervene if Qantas workers seek to break out of the straight-jacket imposed on them by the unions. Labor has repeatedly backed punitive action to break so-called “illegal” strikes, sanctioning police operations against picket lines and imposing massive fines.

A strike by Qantas workers would be viewed by the Labor government as a fundamental challenge to its guarantee to the financial markets that it will prevent any “blow-out” in wages and conditions. A stand by Qantas workers could become a rallying point for workers in all the other industries who face drastic restructuring.

Qantas pilots, engineers and ground staff can only defend their jobs and conditions with a global strategy. The first step must be the development of direct links between Qantas Group workers internationally through the establishment of rank-and-file committees, independent of the trade union apparatuses. A common resistance to the company’s agenda must be formulated across national borders.

This would immediately become a political struggle against the Gillard government. Backed by the entire political establishment, Labor would do everything to suppress any threat to the interests of the corporate elite, including using the anti-democratic provisions of Fair Work Australia that enable it to illegalise industrial action on the grounds it is causing “significant economic damage”. That is why workers must turn to a socialist perspective and the fight for a workers’ government that will expropriate the banks and basic industries, including the airlines, place them under the democratic control of the working class and organise society to provide for social need, not private profit.

unionist1974

27th May 2011, 12:01

This article by Terry Cook must have come from the Green Left Weekly or Socialist Worker . Yes the same Mr Cook , I recall was a Union Deleagte at the SRA workshops at Chullora , in Sydney . Led a glorius campaign of the workers that resulted in them all losing their jobs and the closure and privatisation of the functions carried out in those workshops . Listen to these people at your peril , they will fight your dispute to the last drop of your blood !

Arnold E

27th May 2011, 12:04

Stop your whinging and get on with the job of steering the ship.
Everyone is tired of seeing you in the media crying foul over everything be it
fuel,competition,staff, unions yadda yadda !!!
Why is he so hell bent on locking horns with his own staff !! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif
Just get on with it Alan or hand over the ship to someone else and fast. !!
Iceberg at 12 O'clock !! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif
Ya have to say that this is the logical outcome, isn't, realy, isn't Alan? Wadda ya say??

Arnold E

27th May 2011, 12:08

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “7.30 Report” last night: “There are certain demands I cannot concede to because it will endanger the survival of the company into the long run. It is at that stage. Our international business is losing money. Our international business, if these demands are met, will go backwards even further.”
Could I point out that at one point QANTAS was only an international carrier

WorthWhat

27th May 2011, 16:23

The quintessenial point of the article posted by AGG is 'Qantas pilots, engineers and ground staff can only defend their jobs and conditions with a global strategy. Which, I might add, means employees will need to accommodate more salary at risk.

Sunfish

27th May 2011, 23:04

UNionist1974 is a management troll who is spreading FUD - fear uncertainty and doubt. It's an old tactic.

ALAEA Fed Sec

27th May 2011, 23:06

Lots of people with that christian name - least you didn't give out his last name - more care in future please.

MA

ozbiggles

27th May 2011, 23:27

Fed Sec
I think you will find outing people here is frowned upon. It is your choice to reveal your identity, not your choice to reveal others.
I would hate to see you not able to make your normally interesting contributions here.

stewser89

28th May 2011, 00:01

Heres another courtesy of Solidarity
Solidarity Online (http://www.solidarity.net.au)

Fight over job security brewing at Qantas
May, 2011
Three key unions at Qantas are pressing demands for job security and above-inflation pay rises.
Pilots, aircraft engineers and ground staff, like baggage handlers, catering staff, ramp handlers and refuellers, are all negotiating new enterprise agreements. They are covered by three unions—the Australian and International Pilots Association, Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association and the Transport Workers Union (TWU).
A war of words erupted between Qantas and the unions in March and April.
The 1500 member engineers union has already balloted it members, who responded with a clear majority for industrial action. However, the leadership rushed to say it would not strike over Easter.
Job security is a major issue for the unions. For the 1700 pilots, the worry is that the company is setting up subsidiaries to employ pilots on lower wages and conditions. This happened in 2004, when Qantas set up Jetstar and then Jetstar Asia. Now Qantas talks of more subsidiaries in Asia and New Zealand.
The TWU wants provisions in their new agreement that mean outside contractors get the same wages and conditions as the unionised workforce, thereby discouraging Qantas from outsourcing work and undermining wages.
But Qantas has flatly refused any negotiations on this. Chief executive Alan Joyce has been belligerent, saying the pay and conditions claims are “kamikaze”, “vandalism” and “damaging the Qantas brand”.
Qantas management’s actions have done more to damage “the brand”. The top nine executives gave themselves a 58 per cent pay rise at the end of last year. Qantas has been convicted of a freight price-fixing cartel (see box) and has cutback on maintenance and safety.
In the past Qantas has beaten the unions. If things are to be different this time, it’s important to understand why.
Firstly, it uses divide-and-rule tactics. With 13 unions in Qantas, the CEOs have traditionally taken on one union at a time. The unions, to their detriment, have continued to allow this to happen.
Qantas recently signed off on a deal with the ASU, which covers 8000 employees in telesales, administrative and check-in jobs.
The pilots and engineers EBA talks are open now, while the TWU talks open at the end of June.
Secondly, during every round of negotiations Qantas whines about the parlous state of its profits and the unions agree not to fight for their full claim. In the year the last EBA was agreed, 2008, Qantas made a record $969 million profit.
True to form, Joyce emailed staff recently saying, “It is disappointing that our unions do not understand the severity of our current position.” Qantas’ net profit for the first half of 2010-11 was $241 million.
Giving the lie to its “parlous state” line, in April Qantas announced more flights to London and Los Angeles after its tenth super jumbo began service. It bought three more new planes early this year.
Finally, the company intimidates the unions. The TWU has been threatened with the use of “strike-breakers” trained in Los Angeles. In 2008 it made the same threat about “strike-breakers”, without actually using them. Qantas and Fair Work Australia are currently taking the TWU to the Federal Court for fines, $1 million compensation and unspecified damages for “brand damage” for four-hour strike action it took in 2009.
The tough talk from Qantas shows unions will need to fight, with strike action and solidarity across the workforce, in order to win a decent EBA.
By Tom Orsag

Its sad to see the Australian National Carrier is going down the tube like this. Establishing subsideries and other countries will only kill the only thing it has going for it, Its Australian. If management had reinvested and reinvigorated the product they wouldn't have a declining market-share. Cost is an important part of the problem, but there is no point whining and moaning about Asian carriers with lower cost bases and more advantageous locations, cheap fuel and all that others staff that they come up with it. An Asian entity doing most of the international flying will only alienate the Australian public and the employees.

I think a new name might be appropriate for the Rat, FLAUNTUS.

ALAEA Fed Sec

28th May 2011, 00:38

I think you will find outing people here is frowned upon.

I have been saying this for weeks, I am not holding details of his account or ip of the postings. I base these assumptions on what he has posted and my knowledge of the bloke. Who said such a practice would be frowned upon anyway?

Well bugger me. Just thought I would read the rules and what does it say?

Do not 'out' (reveal or attempt to reveal) the identity of another poster.

Sorry moderators.

DutchRoll

28th May 2011, 02:36

That article linked to in The Australian - it's by 'Joe Hildebrand'.

That name seems to have been at the top of several very anti-pilot, pro-management articles in a number of Murdoch papers lately (Aus, Tele, Herald Sun).
I'd be cautious before accusing Joe Hildebrand of waging a personal campaign against the pilots. He normally writes kinda "nothing" opinion columns, and it's well within the bounds of possibility that the editor has simply walked into his office (which he probably shares with half a dozen other journos), slapped the Qantas PR department fax on his desk, and said "Joe, you're our new Qantas pilot dispute reporter. Do a column on these greedy pigs. All you need to know is in the fax."

But I assume his email would normally appear in the Daily Tele hardcopy at the bottom of his opinion columns like most others do (though I don't have it handy), so feel free to email him with the real facts!

BTW, as far as the most recent column of complete tripe goes, I have calculated that based on the apparent average wage Qantas 747 pilots earn (according to the Murdoch press), and my 5 years on the 747, Qantas payroll have underpaid me by a little over $1.1 million. I'm thinking of demanding the money from them. ;)

spelling_nazi

28th May 2011, 03:06

I contacted joe via Face**** email and politely
pointed out the errors in his article, queried about his fact checking,
and suggested he contact
Aipa to get a balanced view.

He replied "stop cyber stalking me flyboy and take your fat pay cheque somewhere else"

Quality journo.

FGD135

28th May 2011, 04:01

The naivety and arrogance shown in the last few posts is breathtaking. Are you guys actually trying to get everybody offside?

"Joe, you're our new Qantas pilot dispute reporter. Do a column on these greedy pigs. All you need to know is in the fax."

Incredibly insulting to all journalists - but you would be blissfully unaware of that. You have absolutely no idea. You probably think that integrity is the exclusive domain of pilots.

obviously can't back himself with evidence so he goes the childish way

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. He is probably highly annoyed at all the emails he has gotten from pilots over this. If those emails read anything like the last few posts, he would be feeling that these pilots are insulting, arrogant, ignorant, and childish.

full disclosure

28th May 2011, 04:06

Here is a suggestion everyone should take when reading false statements from journalists, and those who do not check their facts, and those who like to respond to their untruths like the journalist above has. It's time to make them accountable as "professionals".Journalists code of ethics - an oxymoron? Most media journalists belong to the Australian Journalists Association, a division of a trade union called the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA). Members are required to follow a code of ethics (shown in full below).What if they breach the code?You can lodge a complaint with the Judiciary Committee of the MEAA. A panel of five journalists will hear your complaint.If you are dissatisfied with the outcome you may lodge an appeal with the Appeals Committee - a panel of three journalists.If you still have not received justice you lodge an appeal with the National Appeals Committee. It consists of a panel of - you guessed it - five journalists.The media proprietors also have their own cosy self-protection club called the Australian Press Council. They have a similar mechanism for dealing with complaints. The AJA withdrew their support from the Press Council some years ago, according to Bev East, Industrial Officer for the MEAA, Perth because "they didn't really do anything. They just warned people and that was it".AJA CODE OF ETHICS Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves toHonesty Fairness Independence Respect for the rights of others 1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain. 6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.10. Do not plagiarise.11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.Guidance ClauseBasic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.

full disclosure

28th May 2011, 04:09

VH-Cheer Up

28th May 2011, 04:33

Sorry for the lack of spacing etc but for some reason I am unable to click on things like bolding, underlining etc when I am posting. I use paragraphs and spacing but when I submit my post it automatically removes it all and posts it as one continuous post.Anyone know how I can rectify this?

I've had the same issue if I edit a post after previewing. I think it must be a bug on PPrune. Don't preview. Just post and it should be OK.

What browser are you using?

breakfastburrito

28th May 2011, 04:53

Full disclosure & VH-Cheer UP
If you are having trouble with the editing (bolding underline etc) you need to select enhanced WISIWIG editing in your profile, under:
EDIT OPTIONS > Miscellaneous Options, pull down menu for Enhanced Interface full WYSIWYG Editing (you probably had the simple interface set).

Click here to go directly to your profile Edit Options (http://www.pprune.org/profile.php?do=editoptions)

FGD135

28th May 2011, 05:27

Full disclosure & VH-Cheer UP,

Also, you may have your browser security settings too high. When set too high, the browser is unable to use the functionality of Java (amongst other things). It is this functionality that allows you to bold, underline and do formatting.

On your browser, first find "Internet Options" (on the "Tools" menu of Internet Explorer 8).

Then click the "Security" tab. For the "Internet" group, the slider should be set at "medium-high".

Chadzat

28th May 2011, 07:14

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. He is probably highly annoyed at all the emails he has gotten from pilots over this.

To use your turn of phrase FGD, "suck it up princess"!

Journalists are responsible for publishing either factual or opinion pieces for the general public's consumption. His piece was certainly not an opinion piece, and it definitely didn't have any fact to it so say again why we as readers of his article should not be able to email him pointing the errors in his writing? :ugh:

brown_hornet

28th May 2011, 08:17

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. He is probably highly annoyed at all the emails he has gotten from pilots over this

Biggest load of crap. And I'm highly annoyed that this journalist is convincing the public, who pay my wage and keep me in a job, that I'm apparently earning shi*loads more than I really am and yet still complaining. He's a journalist, if he can't handle pilots giving him a bit of perspective and more realistic facts, then:ugh:

esreverlluf

28th May 2011, 08:47

Oh I hope so . . .

Hopefully the shareholders - in particular the institutions that hold approx 70% of the company - are starting to think this way too.

:ok::ok::ok:

Short_Circuit

28th May 2011, 08:51

Thank you Brown Hornet, I agree completely.

stubby jumbo

28th May 2011, 08:56

Lets FCKUNI hope so !!

The Clown is way out of his depth.

Send him back to Tipperary .....to be sure x2 !!

Ireland are in desperate need for someone with his intellect and people skills-maybe he could get a job in a War Museum-------he seems to know a lot about Japanese Fighter Pilots.

DOPE:rolleyes:

Taildragger67

28th May 2011, 09:10

he would be feeling that these pilots are insulting, arrogant, ignorant, and childish.

What, like the stuff he is writing (or at least which is being published under his name)?

unionist1974

28th May 2011, 09:24

It is late autumn , the leaves have turned red , but the strong winds have blown them away . Now , comes winter the trees will be barren , no growth a time for reflection .

blueloo

28th May 2011, 09:34

We need to 2nd in charge to head back to mines and dig a hole. It seems its the only thing he is good at.

GlobalMaster

28th May 2011, 09:35

Reckon the following two quotes from the public press aptly sum up the future of Qantas -Qantas and Jetstar as well as every major airline from Japan to the Middle East will be reviewing their strategies and outlook following Singapore Airline’sdecisionto launch a medium to long range wide bodied low fare carrier.In the big picture the filing by the Qantas pilot union for court protected industrial action in pursuit of a new enterprise agreement begs the question as to whether Australian businesses can survive as such in global markets.

Clearly a worry

breakfastburrito

28th May 2011, 09:56

Globalmaster, will any market survive whats coming? The Economic Death Spiral Has Been Triggered (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-economic-death-spiral-has-been-triggered).

After you have read that tell us how the imbalances on both sides of the equation (Western consumers and Asian producers) can be re-balanced without the system imploding. Like double entry bookkeeping, every credit must have a corresponding debit.

BP2197

28th May 2011, 10:47

It seems kind of ironic that one of the key enablers of globalisation, jet aviation is one of the least globalised industries one could imagine. Restrictions on flight plans, slots, foreign ownership and soverign owned entities.... No wonder we have all of these problems - we exist in a no mans land which won't be sorted out until we fully liberalise or nationalise (and lets be honest - what western government could successfully run an airline)the sector. Either way, it will be a rocky, tumultuous ride.

jieunni

28th May 2011, 10:57

Who would you suggest to take over the position then?

I'm not so sure Borghetti would jump ship again..

gobbledock

28th May 2011, 11:07

Breakfastburrito, touché!
Unfortunately what many people are not discussing is that a complete and utter collapse of the United States monetary system is imminent. GFC 2008 was nothing, just a minor bubble in the scheme of the economic health of the world.
Bubble number 2 is close to bursting. If you thought banks and financial stalwarts going bust within a few days was shocking wait until the real bubble bursts. We are talking about entire Countries becoming bankrupt (it has already started), the collapse of the Euro (has commenced) and the complete self destruction of the USD (that process is almost complete).
BP2197
Either way, it will be a rocky, tumultuous ride.
Unfortunately yes. The storm that is brewing is like no other financial annihilation that has ever been recorded in history. And as for the strategists, footstools and he ignorant, just a look around our own Australian backyard. Apart from the resource sector there is huge unemployment, house prices have dropped around Australia by 10 -50% depending on location, I dare anybody to prove me wrong. Record numbers of bankruptcies, fraud, robberies and other social ills are further evidence of a country in decline, we are sliding at an ever faster rate. Charities cannot cope with the amount of people requesting welfare, there is no longer a middle class of people and many can no longer afford food fuel, water and electricity………all this, already in our own backyard.
Tick tock.

gobbledock

28th May 2011, 11:17

Who would you suggest to take over the position then?

A starting point should be somebody who actualy has a diverse background in aviation, and I am talking about someone who does have a technical and financial background, both in aviation.

Those who need not apply should include but not be limited to;
Egotistical bigots
Accountants
Past or future members, employees, mates of BCG
Anybody who respects John Winston Howard or G.Dixon
Anybody who has so much as shared a coffee or a Guiness wit da little fella
Etc etc.....

Chimbu chuckles

28th May 2011, 11:23

Thread creep on.

Breakfastburrito when you purchase goods and services how many of those companies buy stuff from you?

You must, like all of us, have a HUGE trade imbalance with your local petrol station for starters - is that a problem for you?

The west buying cheap stuff from the east is not the problem. The problem is that we have used credit to do so.

The main underlying problem is that our politicians have inflated our currencies to the point of being near worthless - and believe me the ONLY people who create inflation are politicians - at 'our' behest which is the truly sad part. The REAL disparity between the west and east is inflation - we have had HUGE inflation and they have had little.

When politicians rant about trade imbalances they are miss directing your attention like a magician does. While you're watching their left hand they are fisting you with their right.

Thread creep off.

The Kelpie

28th May 2011, 11:26

Who would you suggest to take over the position then?

A true leader!!

Doesn't necessarily need to have a background in Aviation. A charismatic leader who can rally and re-motivate the troops supported by a senior management team (existing post holders need not apply) who have the technical expertise and management style to save and grow the airline.

More to Follow

The Kelpie

MonsterC01

28th May 2011, 11:42

If the Board of directors were 1/2 smart they'd make Rob Fyfe an offer he couldn't refuse.

If you look at the success he's had with Air New Zealand, you can only imagine what he could do with the fallen dynasty that is the Qantas Group.

But we all know the Qantas Board are a long way off 1/2 smart!

What The

28th May 2011, 11:58

Rob Gurney

Ejector

28th May 2011, 12:10

This topic was just as relevant 3 years ago, but he survived. Kind of next...:ugh:

DutchRoll

28th May 2011, 12:29

The naivety and arrogance shown in the last few posts is breathtaking. Are you guys actually trying to get everybody offside?

Quote:
"Joe, you're our new Qantas pilot dispute reporter. Do a column on these greedy pigs. All you need to know is in the fax."
Incredibly insulting to all journalists - but you would be blissfully unaware of that. You have absolutely no idea. You probably think that integrity is the exclusive domain of pilots.

It is what it is.

The reporting in some quarters has been totally devoid of context.

Interpret it however you like........

GlobalMaster

28th May 2011, 14:46

Sorry to admit Burrito, the end of Capitalist Economies Scenarios is beyond my pay grade. Making sense of the airline industry is hard enough.

Closer to home, it would seem from what is going down, that in order for Qantas to survive what is on the way, the Company will first have to make Qantas and Jetstar independent and then merge Jetstar with another LCC and Qantas with another Legacy Carrier.

Changes to the Qantas Sale Act permitting, achieving this may save the day, but until the warring stops and all concerned start talking constructively, Management and the Unions are just 'fiddling while Rome burns'.

ejectx3

28th May 2011, 23:39

You probably think that integrity is the exclusive domain of pilots.

It certainly 'aint the domain of Joe whatshisname that's for sure.

esreverlluf

29th May 2011, 00:31

As far as who should be Qantas CEO - you'd think that for the money on offer, you'd be able to attract a decent candidate rather than the bunch of crooks and shysters that have been there lately.:=

33 Disengage

29th May 2011, 00:35

It must be company policy not to negotiate, a directive from Joyce (but probably above). It doesn't matter what possible solutions are suggested, the company is not engaging.

They want the endgame to start as soon as possible!

That strategy is why the future of Qantas is in jeopardy!

whatever6719

29th May 2011, 00:42

What about James Hogan from Etihad? He's Australian and helped turn Gulf Air around some time back. Now he runs Etihad and they aren't doing badly at all!!

breakfastburrito

29th May 2011, 01:10

Management don't want Qantas to be fixed! Management are attempting to utilize industrial disputes as the catalyst to collapse the company & slip the Qantas Sale Act. If they wanted to fix it they would have given Borghetti the job. They are trying to use the employees to do the "heavy lifting" - management needs a scapegoat to deflect attention from their own (deliberate) acts of destruction. Why have they continuously boxed SO's & FO's in for the last 5+ years, in effect denying promotion through lack of opportunities when the other group operations appear to be very short? Management figures if they can deny promotion for long enough, these pilots will be forced to make a move, handing them the tool for the collapse.

However, this strategy could backfire big time, and AIPA are well aware of this. The risk for Qantas management is that the pilots don't conduct any action that seriously disrupts operations. What is to stop AIPA continuously threatening & withdrawing action over an extended period of time.

The longer this goes on, the worse the erosion of Qantas international marketshare will become, with no one else to blame but management. The shareholder pressure will continue to increase on management to answer for the ongoing poor performance, they will be shown the door.

This is a race between the pilots & the shareholders, who will blink first?

By KAVERI NITHTHYANANTHAN

LONDON—EasyJet PLC's Chief Executive Carolyn McCall on Tuesday criticized former management for mishandling labor issues, as the airline offered its pilots a pay rise in a bid to avert potential strike action.

After lengthy negotiations with the British Airline Pilots' Association, or BALPA, easyJet has promised pilots a 4% increase in basic pay, backdated to October 1, and a further 5% increase in flight pay. Pilots will now vote on whether to accept the deal.

"I am going to be blunt. There has been a continued deterioration in relationships between the company and pilots and pilot representatives over the last few years," Ms. McCall said in a letter to pilots. "For whatever reasons, management lost sight of how big a difference having great people makes. It has taken its toll on how pilots feel about working for easyJet, building mistrust and a lack of respect."

Within the letter, Ms. McCall discussed the airline's failure in the past to meet commitments it had made, BALPA said in a statement. The pay package is being put to a membership ballot that will close June 9.

Industrial action by pilots has a crippling impact on an airline's operations. Their skills aren't as easy to replace as, for example, cabin crew, and wet-leasing planes—leasing aircraft that come with a full contingent of staff—is expensive.

In addition to pay increases, there also will be immediate changes to a number of rostering issues ahead of a more substantial review, BALPA said in a statement. The union expects the deal to include shifting some temporary staff onto permanent contracts.

One of the agreements between BALPA and easyJet is for an independent review body with an independent chairperson to look at pilots' work patterns.

Jim McAuslan, the union's general secretary, said easyJet's offer was a "brave and game-changing approach."

"There has been some tough talking but I have nothing but praise for the imaginative move made by Carolyn McCall and easyJet's new leadership. But we all know this will not be delivered without a lot of hard work and proper support," he said.

A spokesman for easyJet said the deal would offer flexibility for its workforce, providing a mixture of fixed and rostered pilots.

The airline previously had agreed to a deal with pilots that encompassed a 1% increase in pay between April 2010 and October 2010.
WSJ MAY 24, 2011, 11:14 A.M. ET

full disclosure

29th May 2011, 02:34

Peuce,You stated that "You can make fun of the CEO all you like .... but the punter only sees what's on the 7.30 report!This is a PR battle ... not a battle over who's right or wrong."Whilst having the public on side is a nice to have, it is not essential. The pilots and engineers must not forget this. You must fight for what is right, and if management keep telling lies to the public, then just let them do it. It doesn't affect the outcome of your protected industrial action. If flights get cancelled or delayed, the public will just stop flying with Qantas. That in turn affects the managers and their pay packets. Only then will they talk and negotiate like they should have in the first place. You have the power. Management are calling your bluff. The reason they are telling such lies in the media tells me they are really worried, and don't know what to do next.

B772

29th May 2011, 04:27

The Richard Farmer headline yesterday of "Qantas international in jeopardy: who really cares" took me by surprise. Richard then goes on to say "Well I for one hope Alan Joyce's luck has run out and that Qantas is left to its own devices in its dispute with pilots. engineers and cabin crew".

manfred

29th May 2011, 04:58

And this one has taken me by suprise, when I thought News Ltd had made up their mind, one of the most conservative commentators in the country comes out with a very pro-pilot piece:

The real Qantas kamikaze - to be sure to be sure | Daily Telegraph Miranda Devine Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_real_qantas_kamikaze/)

B772

29th May 2011, 05:48

Thanks manfred, a great read. I agree Travolta is a joke. Joyce is a joke and not worth the $3M per year compensation.

mcgrath50

29th May 2011, 07:18

More importantly read the comments, 2 or 3 genuine travellers who are on our side and all but one of the comments backing the pilot side.

Hopefully the first of many...

FlareArmed

29th May 2011, 07:55

Miranda should be given a medal! She is spot-on with her article (linked on manfred's post).

As much as QF staff have been increasingly smacked over the head in the last 10 years, I think most Australians see the company as a national treasure worthy of protection from Johnny-come-latelies who can't see past a spreadsheet.

I sense the tide has turned a little for Qantas staff – I hope there is more frank journalism coming our way soon.

Romulus

29th May 2011, 08:04

Bear in mind Miranda's previous article about Airbus and computer control etc and the comments made then. Smells as if she has some sort of personal interest in this so be careful on taking her at face value or as being representative of wider sentiment.

Wally Mk2

29th May 2011, 23:30

One can almost get lost in the mirad of threads/posts that abound in here re QF & AJ's woeful handling of same.
Lets cut right back to the core of the situation here, the downward spiral of QF & WHY.
Oh boy some could answer that in as much as a few words others could write a book as to why.
For whatever reason you believe to be the case here the end result will be a great many will loose. A.J. & his cohorts won't suffer too much at the end of the day he'll go (hopefully) & still take lots of cash with him whilst leaving the ashes behind. CEO's the world over often pass thru Co's some make a difference for all the wrong reasons some walk away standing tall & proud, the latter a rarity these days sadly.
So here's the question..........Why had the likes of AJ & 'tricky dicky' found it necessary to ruin what was once a great Co.? Surely no sane man would do such a thing from the outset. Some will say he is insane, probably is to some of us but he didn't ascend to his current position by destroying Co's along the way. So what's the answer.................? Not answerable in a few words but lets look at the basics.

Forget AJ for a moment he's just a desperate man now, a figure head whom obviously has no idea I think most agree on that it's more that QF is playing for want of a better word in a world where may other Airlines are competing for the traveling public's dollar.
There's what some 6 billion+ humans on this planet? The world is shrinking due low fares where everybody can afford to travel these days BUT that comes at a cost. So in order to sustain that philosophy that everyone can afford to fly these transportation Co's need to keep the costs down in order to compete & still turn a buck for the share holders, that's the nuts & bolts of it.

What we have here are two opposing ways of thinking/idea's. (bit like the Airbus, doesn't like going down & slowing down at the same time) One is cheap costs to give cheap fares (we all want them) in order to compete but to also keep increasing employees remunerations/job security as the cost of living only ever goes up. What a conundrum, what a mess we are in:sad:!
We all want a better lifestyle who doesn't a fair days pay for a fairs days work. What's fair ??..............that has us here going back & forth doing battle with 'them', the Co's that we work for. We can't stop the world it's out of control in some ways we made it that way ourselves but what we can do is work together to make it 'spin' at a rate that's sustainable. If it takes QF's demise or some form of total restructuring then it was meant to be, so be it perhaps we need another 'ice-age', a little revolution can be a good thing:-).
There's some tough decisions coming up here, not everyone is gunna like the outcome, some toes are going to be trodden on for sure.
I don't have all the answers I just try to stand outside the problem & look in as if it doesn't effect me. What I do know though what we have now is unsustainable & AJ knows this,but is he going about it the right way? Now there's an even bigger question!!!
For me before some of you go off the planet here I was caught up in the Oil industries world of 'restructuring' some years ago (that new "in word"back then) with a powerful union at the time (TWU) where all Mobil employees at Tulla where moved on & then re-hired under new T&C's. That changed my life forever & there was nothing I/we could do about it despite severe industrial action . My job at the RFDS came to an end due simply the evil of mankind,money/Govt's, that also changed my life. Now I work in an industry that's forever changing, less secure than ever. It's good to stand together for sure but it's smarter to make yr own nest as secure as possible & on yr own don't rely on anyone else:) Hard times ahead, we ought to get used to it.

Just thinking out loud here:)

Wmk2

teresa green

30th May 2011, 00:43

The answer is in front of your noses. Borgetti. He knows the company like he knows his own kitchen. Offer him the habour bridge, a block of units, any bloody thing to get him back. He will turn the company around very smartly. But first you need to shaft the board that dismissed him. A new board is required, one that contains both Pilot and Engineer representatives, a couple of outstanding retired ones are fine, (not me, I am committed to fishing) plus a bean counter and a expert in the travel and transport business, then you might get the company back onto straight and level. Dreaming I know, but then anything is possible.

Ken Borough

30th May 2011, 06:25

But first you need to shaft the board that dismissed him

Que? Didn't JB resign after he didn't get the top job? I belive he stayed around for a while after AJ's appointment as QF CEO and then submitted his resignation.

unionist1974

30th May 2011, 06:44

tg and Wally , I have 2 nominations for yhe board , how about santa Claus :8and the Easter bunny . i am sure they will represent you well

standard unit

30th May 2011, 07:07

They'd do a better job than the clueless cretins responsible for getting us into the farked state we are in now. :ugh:

teresa green

30th May 2011, 07:12

Could not do any worse Unionist. Ken, the board should have recognised the blokes potential and kept him on, not let him go to Virgin. A big mistake that QF will pay for dearly and already are. TE show what a good CEO can do, they were struggling until the new CEO turned the airline around, happy staff, equals a happy sucessful airline, Qantas deserves nothing less.

Ken Borough

30th May 2011, 07:29

the board should have recognised the blokes potential and kept him on, not let him go to Virgin.

They did (keep him on) and they didn't (let him go to Virgin). JB resigned. How would they have kept him in the place if he didn't want to stay? Righly or wrongly, the board made a call, and now they have to live with it.

unionist1974

30th May 2011, 07:40

i agree with you , JB was a lost opportunity for QF . Ah well , but now its time to "move on " as the mgmt types say.

mcgrath50

30th May 2011, 08:20

KB,

I believe it was more a case of Qantas made no effort to value his experience (does that sound familiar). Even though they passed on him for CEO and a small payrise and a nice pat on the back could have gone a long way.

rodchucker

30th May 2011, 09:00

McG,

You dreaming?? This is not the management style of these guys and certainly NOT small pay rises for anyone in the ranks that count.That would set a BAD precedent that may affect them, just ask any well paid consultant.

Suspect JB saw what was going to happen and chose a graceful exit knowing he would have the last laugh as the axe started swinging through the top..

maui

30th May 2011, 12:56

Teresa m'dear

This is not the first time you have spoken longingly of a reunion of JB and Q.
Like many dreams, it is just that.

I have no idea what the arrangements are, but I would seriously doubt that JB would have been appointed on the basis that he could walk away anytime soon. Offer him the harbour bridge by all means, but the reality is, he is probably not able to accept.

Assuming that he was able to walk away from Virgin, why would he want too. A bit like a poor besotted fool crawling back to a lover that has kicked him in the nuts. Much better to let the bitch rot away. Especially as he has found someone else to cherish.
Whilst I don't think he is of the extreme ego driven breed that seems to predominate the upper management levels of Q, he must get a hell of a buzz out of watching AJ self destruct whilst he himself is seen to be building a worthwhile and viable airline, acting with compassion and integrity, and turning pretty good coin to boot.

Your time would be better invested dreaming of that big fish you have been after for years.

M

BrissySparkyCoit

30th May 2011, 13:45

Alan Joyce...Wrong Choice.....

caneworm

30th May 2011, 15:46

...the board should have recognised the blokes potential and kept him on, not let him go to Virgin.
Quite simple really. JB is a builder who value adds, joyce is a wrecker who only knows slash & burn.

The board couldn't do it via APA, joyce is their next best opton to achieve the same result.

He has only one thing to lose, his bonus. If he fails to kneecap the pilots and engineers he will not collect his precious bonus. Bonus or not, he will move on, (to the next disaster) and we are left to salvage what's left.

qfcabin

31st May 2011, 00:43

Most new CEO's eliminate thjeir strongest competition as soon as they arrive. JB resigned but had no future in QF under a new CEO.

Lindeman was far too experienced ..he had the most corporate memory in the company. Once again uncomfortable for the new incumbent to have him around so made his position untenable by removing him from his US position and giving him nothing on return to Sydney.

Then the crocodile tears at both sendoffs. "how can we get along without you guys?"

Dog eats dog at that level.

Virgin profits from both moves.

fishers.ghost

31st May 2011, 07:52

Qantas is depriving Australians of a world class airline with a world class international network.Qantas continues to deprive Australians a choice of destinations by removing them.Qantas continues to deprive the mum and dad shareholders of not only a dividend but is also destroying their shareholder value.Qantas is denying Australian children the opportunity to work as pilots,cabin crew,engineers and ground staff by off shoring these positions.
The CEO is a foreign philistine who has no emotional connection with Australia or Qantas.This foreigner is provoking Australians into taking protected industrial action which is turn going to disrupt the travel plans of other Australians.
How on earth can Qantas insist "we still call Australia home" when it clearly is not?
Australians never used to tolerate such anti Australian behaviour.
Why are we tolerating it now?
Joyce,this foreigner, is set on destroying one of the few icons we have left in this country.Once Qantas is destroyed this stranger will leave,return to Ireland and take his ill gotten millions with him.
Do not let this happen!!!

teresa green

1st Jun 2011, 08:10

Mauri old chap, never say never, not about anything, if I have learnt nothing else, I have learnt that. Yes I am a Borgetti fan, I can think of nobody better to run QF. I suspect he will return. On his terms. He was shafted by the board, no doubt about that and he did what most of us would do, told em to get nicked. He's laughing.

Captain Dart

1st Jun 2011, 09:02

Sorry to burst your bubble fishers, but I am an Aussie who works for a foreign airline. I have been positioning with QF on-and-off for over 20 years and unfortunately the product, particularly in the cabin, has not been 'world class' for most of that period. I won't bore you with the bad QF experiences I, my airline colleagues and my family have had over the years. There has been the occasional good experience, but not enough to outweigh the bad ones.

The 'world classness' of QF is a myth perpetuated by management, staff and shareholders. For many Aussies QF ceased being an 'icon' years ago.

Akali Dal

1st Jun 2011, 09:30

Ozzies in general and QF in particular suffer from the " we are no. 1 " syndrome like many Americans and American institutions, very insular living in their make believe world of grandeur. Let QF collapse, restructure and hire internationally at competitive rates. Source globally and smartly, you will get the best of the world. The world is now a global village; stop thinking and behaving like marauding pirates with single eye vision.

BrissySparkyCoit

1st Jun 2011, 09:40

I can see all the Brisbane Taxi drivers and Telemarketers lining up to be the new faces at the coalface of "The Spirit Of Australia"..... some of your mates, Akali?

OchreOgre

1st Jun 2011, 09:56

I am not wanting.:rolleyes:

Akali Dal

1st Jun 2011, 10:05

Ken Borough

1st Jun 2011, 10:16

Lindeman was far too experienced ..he had the most corporate memory in the company.

Really? Believe that at your peril. If you truly do, then both Santa Claus and fairies at the foot of the garden are alive and well.:ugh::ugh:

Gotnogoals

1st Jun 2011, 10:46

At a recent Virgin staff meeting a question to Borgetthi was asked on what effect the situation at Qantas at the moment will have on Virgin.
His answer. "as long as Joyce is in charge it makes my job alot easier"

Roller Merlin

1st Jun 2011, 10:50

Handbrake, the Crikey blog is free to read, and we should all read Ben's Bloggs as he has the most insight of any aviation writer at the moment:

Qantas under pressure from Cathay Pacific and investors | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/06/01/pressure-builds-on-qantas-management/)

the_company_spy

1st Jun 2011, 10:55

Merlin, agree. All should be reading his blog.

BrissySparkyCoit

1st Jun 2011, 11:23

Cabbies, telemarketers.........all honestly making their living unlike some descendants of dacoits and convicts who robbed the real Aussies of their land and dignity.:= you no wanting, sure you want!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Honestly making a living??? Attempting to scam and rip off passengers / recipients of their calls? Have attempted to scam me and rip me off many time oh golly gosh.

Perhaps they have a place in management!:ok:

Birdy Num Num.

Sunfish

1st Jun 2011, 18:57

With the greatest respect, I would imagine that the decision about Borghetti and Joyce was made by the Board on the recommendation of Dixon, and Dixon would never recommend Borghetti.

The reason for this is simple; the Board has "buy in" on Dixons world view. They were sold his strategy, including all the Jetstar and "legacy airline" stuff and they fell for it hook, line and sinker. I'm sure it was most convincing, I'd probably be convinced myself.....

......Except that old Sunfish believes that people are funny animals that often do strange unaccountable things but that respond to decency, fair treatment and a little good leadership. I suspect that Borghetti believes the same as me, or he wouldn't be working for the likes of Richard Branson.

Philosophy is rather important at the top of any organisation. It is all about that "core values" stuff. Business strategy always reflects those core values and all employees have very sensitive bullshyte detecting antennas that immediately detect them. This is why Two different people can say "our people are our greatest asset" one gets applause, the other gets a horse laugh.

The Board simply could not appoint Borghetti without jettisoning everything that Dixon stood for.

Borghettis is now getting the opportunity to prove the superiority of his world view and philosophy over Dixons. He may win, he may lose, or he may be cheated. Time will tell.

As for Joyce? He has no strategic vision at all. He stands for anything and nothing. He is simply Dixons "MiniMe".

YouTube - ‪Austin Powers 2, Dr Evil + Mini Me - Just The Two of Us‬&rlm;

Jackneville

1st Jun 2011, 21:44

Spot-on Sunfish, Borghetti defined his integrity by having nothing to do with the APA bid for QF. He was the only one out of of that group of what , 24 (?) or so senior managers who were going to 'buy' QF, using private equity funds, to opt out. In essence, he curtailed any future career path he might have had in QF , his integrity obviously couldn't be bought and no doubt Dixon and the others would have despised him .

With apologies to South Park, Dixon is/was like Prof. Mephesto and Joyce his assistant Kevin, and they are turning Qantas into the Four-Assed Monkey, all very sad

breakfastburrito

1st Jun 2011, 22:56

Interesting to look back and review the historical account:
Read it, then re-read it and view things today through the prism of the Chairman of the Board also being a Senior advisor to KKR, one of the worlds largest private equity funds, the original "Barbarians at the Gate".

Did Qantas chief bale out on real job?
ONE of the top Qantas executives, John Borghetti, has come out with an extraordinary and highly troubling statement.

After an American Chamber of Commerce in Australia lunch on Tuesday, executive general manager Borghetti was quoted as saying Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon had been forced to "abandon" his day job while working on the failed takeover bid for the airline.

"Senior management ... (including) Geoff, Peter (Gregg, Qantas CFO), me ... a lot of time was taken up with this thing.

"It went about six months. You couldn't get your job done. You had to sort of abandon it."

Other executives, Borghetti added, "carried the company through" the period.

Now is this the Geoff Dixon who was paid a multi-million dollar salary to run Qantas? Or was this the Dixon who was part of the takeover team trying to buy Qantas at what became clear was a bargain basement price?

Either way there seems to be a difficulty, if what Borghetti was asserting is correct. And it demonstrates the very serious issues raised by these buyouts in which top management participate.

At a very simple level, a shareholder is entitled to presume that executives who are paid big salaries actually "do" their "day jobs".

Now obviously in multi-billion dollar highly complex takeovers, executives -- and especially the CEO and CFO -- are going to be drawn into supplying information, and having discussions with, the bidders.

As they are acting in the best interests of shareholders, that in a sense becomes their "day job". Borghetti's comment would be unremarkable. In an arms' length takeover.

But in this context who are Dixon and Gregg "working for"? In a perfect world, they could work for both. The shareholders and the bidders.

We do not live in a perfect world. Indeed the board of Qantas recognised the (obvious) conflict of interest; and established protocols so that Dixon and Gregg took no part in discussing the bid as directors.

Rather than solve the problem it exacerbated it; and showed all too clearly the unacceptable face of these management-involved buyouts.

First, surely the protocols should have gone deeper. That Dixon and Gregg could not help the bidder in the bidding process; in a real sense, help themselves.

That not only were they handsomely paid to "do their day job" -- run Qantas; but in the context of the takeover that is exactly all they should have done to avoid any conflict.

But secondly and worse, the board "inviting them out" of their two responsibilities as directors and the company's top executives, actually deprived shareholders of their most important resource in the takeover context.

Yes, governance "says" that's how you resolve the conflict. But who knows most about the company's real-time performance and the dynamics of its value going forward?

If it's not first the CEO and then the CFO, I don't know who. Yet their lips were apparently sealed. At least so far as guiding shareholders was concerned.

This makes even more critical an accounting for Qantas's utter failure to keep shareholders informed of the company's dramatically improved operating performance through the takeover period.

As discussed last week, chairman Margaret Jackson only grudgingly disclosed in mid-March that 2006-07 profit was likely to be slightly better than the 30-40 per cent increase foreshadowed at the beginning of February with the release of the interim results.

The mid-March update said it would be "towards the upper end of the range". That is actually a very marginal uplift. From "30 to 40 per cent", to "towards the 40 per cent".

In fact the actual increase came in over 60 per cent, a very, very significant uplift. And at no stage, through the offer's close in early May and indeed through the end of the financial year, did Qantas revise its guidance.

Let's throw two other matters into the pot that arise in the Qantas context but have relevance to LBOs (leveraged buyouts) and takeovers generally.

It is suggested that Qantas's advisers, global investment bank UBS and then-boutique investment bank Carnegie Wylie, were to share a $96 million success fee.

For what? A price for Qantas that turned out to be far too low? Or for forcing the bidders to pay an extra 10c per Qantas share in the negotiating phase?

If the latter, getting an extra $200 million for Qantas shareholders got them $96 million. You'd have to say, an extraordinarily generous fee.

I can't assert for certain that sum was correct. But some success fee would have been payable. They always are and $96 million in an $11 billion takeover would not have been out of the ballpark.

It would have been if it was the extra $200 million that got it.

So was the potential fee disclosed in the Qantas target statement? No, they never are. Indeed, there is no reference to any fee being paid to UBS and/or Carnegie Wylie.

Now of course both would have been paid by the bidder -- APA, Airline Partners Australia. The success fee as well as the higher bid price.

And perhaps paid more than happily, if the second suggestion is true. That their working as-is valuation of Qantas was $7 a share as against the $5.45 (actually) offered.

Now I have no doubt that Jackson and her fellow directors thought they were acting in the best interests of shareholders. She was consumed by the fear the share price would plummet if the takeover went away. It of course did, go away, and it didn't, plummet.

Although she might ponder whether the company's previously low share price might have in part been due to Dixon's ceaseless talking down of the airline's supposedly precarious financial position, as an IR bargaining tactic, used especially so successfully in starting Jetstar.

Now Dixon and Gregg are honourable men. As Jackson noted in a special statement in late February, Dixon announced he would gift the entire (up to) $60 million incentive payment to him by the bidding group to a charitable trust.

Springing to his defence is understandable. Less so is that she could find the time to defend her CEO, but not to keep shareholders informed on the company's surging profitability.

Further, if we make the reasonable assumption that Dixon's charitable gift would attract a tax deduction, he might have got $28million back from taxpayers.

Bottom line is one word: transparency. LBOs are part of market practice. We might wish it otherwise. Existing governance structures are inadequate.

Why weren't Dixon and Gregg confined to their "day jobs"? Helping the bidder on behalf of helping shareholders should have been unacceptable.

And why didn't Qantas institutionally bend over backwards to keep shareholders informed on its improving profitability -- something presumably known to senior executives.

More broadly, this whole murky business of "success fees" raises a similar issue. Whom exactly are advisers working for? Again, the starting point is to disclose them and their terms.

Did Qantas chief bale out on real job? (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/did-qantas-chief-bale-out-on-real-job/story-e6frg7gx-1111114314588), September 01, 2007

ejectx3

1st Jun 2011, 23:56

Am I going crazy or isn't it "bail" out? Or is it a play on words somehow?
Even the original article it is spelt "bale"....

Dunnocks

2nd Jun 2011, 01:41

The Collins Australian Concise Dictionary advises that they're interchangable and the both mean jumping out of a burning aircraft AND assisting a business out of financial difficulties...not a lot of people know that!

Either way, Dixon and Gregg were compromised fatally by their involvement.
Gregg's assertion later that LAME's were making 'a grab for cash' was the subject of bitter hilarity among the QF LAME fraternity

WorthWhat

2nd Jun 2011, 05:53

The following financial information, which is hot off the street, paints a different picture. Based on this information, Qantas International is doing quite well.

International continues to be the stand-out performer – loads in April recovered to be in line with strong trends seen throughout FY11. (The dip in March was due to the Japanese and Christchurch earthquakes)
International yields are up 8.7% YTD (excl FX).
Qantas has generated an estimated additional $141m in revenue in April
:confused:

Source: Sydney Investment Bank Note of 2 Jun 11

standard unit

2nd Jun 2011, 06:01

Interesting given the flight attendant [international and domestic] redundancies rumoured to have just been announced........

Redstone

2nd Jun 2011, 06:03

The plot thickens, If those figures are credible it would be interesting to compare them directly with J* internationals. There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

WorthWhat

2nd Jun 2011, 06:12

Rest assured the extrated financial information is both accurate and timely, but it also comes with a Confidentiality and Security Notice.

QFinsider

2nd Jun 2011, 06:28

If one does some searching there appear a few names at the end of the money trail.

Leasing companies, private equity firms, consultants, even "disputed" tasman group entities.....

gobbledock

2nd Jun 2011, 06:53

If one does some searching there appear a few names at the end of the money trail.
Leasing companies, private equity firms, consultants, even "disputed" tasman group entities.....
Smartest posting on this thread to date. Probably 98% of the general populous including staff have no idea how tangled and complex the executive paper trail is when it comes to disseminating exactly how much moolah these guys, the executives, are pulling in from a variety of methods, but let me assure you that if you were to thoroughly for better words 'research' all the facts you would be astounded at what nice little earner's these guys have in place. EXACTLY as suggested by QFinsider. If you think their salaries and bonuses are obscene, you have not seen anything yet. For leagal and privacy reasons I would never disclose names, figures and facts as I would be sent to 'financial Hell for eternity', but I am sure that there are some other astute equally pi#sed off people out there ready to run the gauntlet and expose the truth ??

gruntyfen

2nd Jun 2011, 07:31

We may run a Voluntary Redundancy Program for Qantas Airlines Cabin Crew (QAL)
____________________________________________________________ ______

We will shortly be sending out communications regarding expressions of interest for a Voluntary Redundancy program that we
may run in both our Domestic and International Qantas Airlines Cabin Crew divisions.

To avoid people that have expressed an interest in knowing the figures from being put on a 'non voluntary redundancy program' list if they reject voluntary I'd suggest the union request all employees are given the figures. Everybody is equal and nobody has had to show their cards.

waren9

2nd Jun 2011, 07:34

Post 131

Disagree.

There is nothing in those points to indicate QF INTL is doing well.

With each of them, ask yourself "relative to what?"

Redstone

2nd Jun 2011, 08:09

There is nothing in those points to indicate QF INTL is doing well.

With each of them, ask yourself "relative to what?"

Relative to the CEO harping on about how Qf international is failing and loosing money.

vigi-one

2nd Jun 2011, 21:43

posted on news.ninemsn.com.au this morning

The announcement came on the same day the airline announced its international unit carried 509,000 passengers in April 2011, up 7.4 per cent from April 2010.

go figure! are jetstar also reducing numbers or still recruiting? Does Jetstar passengers pay a fuel levy?

Sunfish

2nd Jun 2011, 22:26

By hand, to be opened by the addressee only:

It has come to my attention that some Group Executives are operating under the mistaken impression that short term performance is the determinant of their remuneration rather than adherence to the long term goals of our majority shareholders. The Board therefore wishes to restate the guiding principles that underpin our operations, even at the risk of stating the obvious.

The first principle is that at all times the corporation must ensure that as little as possible information, financial or otherwise, that may hint at the true value, and of course profitability of our operations, is publicly released.

While we are required by continuous disclosures law to provide the markets with material information, the Board makes every effort to ensure that such information as we provide is not only legally correct, but supports our communication strategy. It is difficult enough to reconcile a growth in revenue with an announcement regarding the painful necessity of redundancies, but we have to try.

Our task is not made any easier by Group Executives "high five - ing" each other and congratulating themselves on their monthly profitability in the presence of junior employees. At all times we must maintain a suitably hang dog expression and ensure that an atmosphere of anxiety and depression over the corporate future is maintained. You must always remember that our efforts to outsource, downsize and otherwise break the spirit of our Australian employees will be completely compromised if there is the slightest hint of how profitable and valuable we really are, or even the suggestion that over time we might become profitable.

I do not need to tell you that were Australians in general and shareholders in particular able to understand the full value of this corporation, there would be serious pressure for change at Board level. Group Executives will not be immune from that pressure should it develop. Fortunately for us, there are no financially literate people with the requisite industry experience in Australia in the press, regulators or Government who are able to correctly assess our worth that we do not already control or at least influence. This is why we continue to get away with our little "acceptable return" tag line; "Yes, we are profitable we tell the markets, but the returns aren't acceptable." Nobody can gainsay us.

Be aware however that we cannot rely solely on this lack of expertise to protect us. As the unfortunate failed bid demonstrated, there are enough institutional shareholders already who are deeply suspicious of our motives. We need to tread an exceedingly fine line between disappointing our shareholders and keeping our employees in a permanent state of anxiety about their job security.

I know its difficult, but each piece of good news must be matched by a corresponding negative. Our strategy relies on the corporation being permanently "under threat" to its very existence. Our ability to manipulate our workforce, regulators and the Government relies on this tried and proven totalitarian tactic. To put it another way, there must be no good news, ever!

No executive will ever be penalised for down playing the performance of their operations.

Burn this now.

pondoklabu

2nd Jun 2011, 22:37

Sunfish, your true talent is wasted. It would be even funnier if it wasnt so true.

breakfastburrito

2nd Jun 2011, 22:45

Pure genius Sunfish, gold.
This will stir the juices of the detectives on this forum.

1532.80

assasin8

2nd Jun 2011, 23:15

There are two unique aspects of Qantas which define it...

Firstly, it is iconically Australian... It's that little part of this great country that flies around the world and when you step onboard, that welcoming Aussie "G'day" takes you home immediately.

Secondly, it is our safety reputation... So famous, that it even got a mention in a Hollywood movie!

So why is it that those very aspects, which make this Airline great, are being eroded by our Management?:ugh:

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Sunfish

3rd Jun 2011, 04:06

YouTube - ‪Bing Crosby - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court‬&rlm;

Oldmate

3rd Jun 2011, 07:02

Does anybody have any educated theories about why the QF share price took such a dive today? I doubt the announced redundancies would have wiped nearly 4%.

Ka.Boom

3rd Jun 2011, 07:51

They went ex dividend because they dont pay a dividend.

gobbledock

3rd Jun 2011, 07:57

Old Mate, I posted this on another thread, but it may help your answer -
Problem is that the Global share market tanked in general yesterday, down 2.2% in total with Wall Street copping a hiding. Australia lost around $33 billion on shares. Of course the Australian economists are naturally painting a healthy glowing forecast which is a croc. We have a two speed economy and if you are one of the minority involved in the resource sector you then Santa has been rewarding you with lots of lovely gifts but if you work in any other sector like the majority of us then you are not only bleeding but you are having your short and long term wealth stripped away from you. The USA is close to collapse, as a result China will slow off (the Yanks can't afford to pay back the billions they have borrowed from them) and then our economy will take an even bigger hit. Qf redundancies are just the tip of the iceberg......

Clipped

3rd Jun 2011, 07:58

2.03 at close.

Why buy QAN for 6.05 when the deal can be done for a third of that? Oh Cliffy, you've got it covered.

QAN_Shareholder

3rd Jun 2011, 08:15

Does anybody have any educated theories about why the QF share price took such a dive today? I doubt the announced redundancies would have wiped nearly 4%.

Rumour has it that Qantas have been talking down their profit guidance.

DEFCON4

3rd Jun 2011, 09:40

Q Management talk down everything except their bonuses.In so doing they have destroyed shareholder value.The institutions holding this stock must have poorly thought out investment strategies.
The sky gravy train for incompetent poorly educated management muppets

packrat

3rd Jun 2011, 09:53

Macquarie downgraded QAN shares from outperform to neutral.The shares fell in a market already skittish from recent data on the US economy.Under current circumstances QF is a $1.75 share.Its over valued at $2.03.Look at the data and do the sums.It ain't pretty

stubby jumbo

3rd Jun 2011, 10:17

QAN shares = junk bonds:eek:

rodchucker

3rd Jun 2011, 10:50

They could always make some Positive contribution to the debate and put a floor under the share price by freezing Exec bonuses....sorry I am dreaming again.

Wonder how they will justify it this year???

QAN_Shareholder

3rd Jun 2011, 10:51

Packrat,

Under current circumstances QF is a $1.75 share.Its over valued at $2.03.Look at the data and do the sums.

I wonder if you could enlighten me as to which 'data and sums' you use to get to $1.75.

Arnold E

3rd Jun 2011, 10:54

I wonder if you could enlighten me as to which 'data and sums' you use to get to $1.75. QAN_Shareholder (http://www.pprune.org/members/349933-qan_shareholder)How much do you think your investment is worth then??

QAN_Shareholder

3rd Jun 2011, 11:51

Arnold,

How much do you think your investment is worth then??

My point is that Packrat has probably not looked at any data and not done any sums, I suspect he has pulled a number out of thin air. But perhaps he has done the work and if so I'd like to hear how he gets to a valuation of $1.75. He quotes Macquarie who I believe have a valuation quite a bit higher and I'm convinced they will have looked at plenty of data and done lots of sums.

packrat

3rd Jun 2011, 11:54

My friend pretend you are interested in buying the Qantas business.
Start by looking at its assets and liabilities.Look at the industry it is in and how it differentiates itself.Look at its management and gauge their competence.Determine the debt to equity ratio.Ask yourself if the business is competitive.Look at their fixed costs and how they are managed.Are they astute in the way they manage their revenue base?.Is the business capital intensive?What are their borrowing costs?What are the business future prospects.In short do a Warren Buffett evaluation.The information and data is available you just have to look.If you have invested in a company without some fundamental research then you are foolish with your money.Ask yourself why you hold shares in the business.Ask yourself if your money would provide a better return elewhere.
After you have completed your research I guarantee you will sell your shares tomorrow.If you dont then you have made the fatal investor mistake of having an emotional attachement to the business .
You will do your dough.
I've done my research and to me Qantas is worth a $1.75.With a declining market share and a mangement team who dont have a clue I have determined that my money is better being invested elsewhere.Even banks will give you 6.5%.
What return did you receive on your Qantas investment this financial year?
Have your shares grown in value?
If the answers to the last to questions are zero and no and you still hold shares after monday then you are a poor manager of your own funds
As for Macquarie all their research counted for nought with the GFC.If they are so good why didnt they see it coming?
They make mistakes all the time.The mistakes just arent big enough to bring their business down.
Give it awhile and Macquarie will change their evaluation of Qantas to underperform.Their research is thorough but generally slow for the longterm

Arnold E

3rd Jun 2011, 11:59

My point is that Packrat has probably not looked at any data and not done any sums, I suspect he has pulled a number out of thin air. But perhaps he has done the work and if so I'd like to hear how he gets to a valuation of $1.75. He quotes Macquarie who I believe have a valuation quite a bit higher and I'm convinced they will have looked at plenty of data and done lots of sums

Never the less, answer the question.

QAN_Shareholder

3rd Jun 2011, 12:18

Packrat,

Start by looking at its assets and liabilities.Look at the industry it is in and how it differentiates itself.Look at its management and gauge their competence.Determine the debt to equity ratio.Ask yourself if the business is competitive.Look at their fixed costs and how they are managed.Are they astute in the way they manage their revenue base?.Is the business capital intensive?What are their borrowing costs?What are the business future prospects.In short do a Warren Buffett evaluation.The information and data is available you just have to look.If you have invested in a company without some fundamental research then you are foolish with your money.Ask yourself why you hold shares in the business.Ask yourself if your money would provide a better return elewhere.

So, a justification for a valuation of $1.75 without quoting a single number?

Arnold,

I'll give my view once I see Packrat's valuation!

Arnold E

3rd Jun 2011, 12:35

I'll give my view once I see Packrat's valuation!

$1.75 isnt it?

packrat

3rd Jun 2011, 12:36

I have been investing in the market for a long time and I've learnt to trust my gut.The $1.75 ?...its an opinion based on research and my transcending colon.
The stock market and company shares prices are based on fuzzy and imprecise science coupled with a herd mentality.As I said for me its a $1.75 share .Your research and gut may come up with a different number.You have to live with that number just like I do.
Maquarie will tell you that there is a rough margin of error around 15% with their valuations.They could be off by 30 cents either way.If they had survived the GFC unscathed they would have more credibility.They didnt and for me they dont
What was your purchase price for your QF shares ?
Buy a book called The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham.Its a game changer

The intrinsic value of a share
An investor may calculate the intrinsic value of a share by differing methods and will eventually come up with a price that he or she believes represents good buying value. Graham had his methods of calculating intrinsic value, Warren Buffett has his, other successful investors have theirs.
Graham acknowledges, however, that calculations may be wrong, or that external events may take place to affect the value of the share. These cannot be predicted. For these reasons, the investor must have a margin of safety, an inbuilt factor that allows for these possibilities.
~ Benjamin Graham
$1.75 allows me my margin of safety.If Q shares drop to this price they will be within my margin of safety and for me they are a buy

Sunfish

3rd Jun 2011, 19:30

Based on the 2009 annual report on the QF website, the asset backing of the shares is $2.54.

In other words, QF is trading at less than the value of its assets.

Airlines have huge cash flows and can make, or lose, a lot of money very fast, but this number is ridiculous.

One therefore has to ask if there is another buyer waiting in the wings? The APA bid failed, will someone try an on market raid?

Will Jamie Packer come in and take J.P. Morgans slice?

There appear to be wheels within wheels spinning around the way QF is being run, and I wonder if a deeper game is being played?

The APA bid revolved around inside information in my opinion. I wonder if the same players are setting up for a second try?

I also wonder if the ATO and ASIC have ever taken an interest in the IATA Montreal clearing house and what that means from the point of view of moving money around the world?

Oldmate

3rd Jun 2011, 20:32

Isn't mr Clifford a director of KKR, who's business is private equity takeovers?

What The

3rd Jun 2011, 21:35

Qantas chairman Clifford denies rift with Joyce

Steve Creedy
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
June 04, 2011 12:00AM

QANTAS chairman Leigh Clifford has slammed rumours of a rift with chief executive Alan Joyce as "absolute rubbish" and says there is no board dissension over the company's industrial strategy.

Rumours of a rift and reservations by some board members about the developing battle with the airline's pilots and engineers have been swirling around the industry along with speculation about changes at the top.

But in a forthright interview with The Weekend Australian, Mr Clifford moved to emphatically quash the rumours while emphasising the need for a major revamp of the carrier's beleaguered international operations.

He also attacked the leadership of the pilot and engineering unions for its failure to understand the competitive threats facing Qantas.

As Qantas shares yesterday slumped to $2.03, their lowest point in nearly two years, Mr Clifford said he had worked with Mr Joyce for three years, and as chief executive for two, and enjoyed working with him.

He said the board had discussed in detail the airline's industrial relations issues, particularly the nature of claims by the pilots and the engineers. He and Mr Joyce spoke regularly about the issue although he was "very conscious" the chief executive was running the business". He had also personally canvassed every board member as part of an annual review and given each an opportunity to raise concerns.

"The board is absolutely right behind Alan and very comfortable with how he's running the business," he said. "Now that doesn't mean we're happy with where the business is, but absolutely Alan and I are in lockstep."

Operations at Qantas international are under review as the long-haul airline continues to fail to make a return on capital in the face of increasing competition. At the same time, the airline is also facing industrial action by unions over job security issues.

Mr Clifford said the board was aware of the challenges facing the industry and the directors were "absolutely on the same page about the importance of making changes", including to the loss-making international airline.

"They understand the predicament of the international business and we are looking at alternatives," he said.

"And what I can assure you is it will be different going forward -- make no bones about it, it will be different going forward -- it cannot remain as it is."

Asked whether this included a full-service airline in Asia, Mr Clifford pointed to comments by Mr Joyce that alternatives were being considered.

"We're looking at a variety of alternatives and one of the discussions I've had with Alan is 'let's not constrain ourselves'," he said. "What we've got to do is have something which can ensure the viability of the business going forward and an adequate return on capital and that's not what we're getting at the moment. That's the best way to secure jobs. Writing pieces of paper is not the way to do it, whether you're in the auto industry or any other industry."

The Qantas chairman said he had briefed major shareholders on the airline's situation and they had rightly highlighted their concern about the airline's economic performance, particularly in the international business, as well as the lack of reality in union claims.
He said he was aware the union leadership was briefing analysts but "wise and experienced people" would know the union objective was to create concern and disharmony, and pressure management.

But management already had plenty of pressure from the share price, the profit performance and the encroachment of Emirates and AirAsia.

"We can handle the competitive environment, we can't do it sitting on our hands," he said "We've got to be creative, we've got to be thoughtful and we're willing to do that. That's how we'll respond to the share price and, frankly, I'd say every investor I've spoken to is right behind that."

Mr Clifford said he was also concerned that employees were being misinformed by their union leaders. He said anyone who understood what was going on in the aviation industry understood the magnitude of the challenges facing the company.

"Frankly, I've spent more time on some of those claims than the other board members in discussion with Alan," he said. "You have to say to yourself, 'What planet are these people on given the competitive environment?' Haven't they heard of AirAsia, haven't they heard of the challenges coming from Emirates, from Etihad, from Qatar.

"They only have to speak to Airbus so see what the order books look like to understand some of the challenges

Qantas chairman Clifford denies rift with Joyce | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/qantas-chairman-clifford-denies-rift-with-joyce/story-e6frg8zx-1226068961177)

blueloo

3rd Jun 2011, 21:46

Hardly surprising comments from Clifford.

What I like is the fact, that they have developed a strategy for QANTAS, which isn't working, and that they have the guts and determination to continue with this strategy, no matter what the cost.

Bravo!

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

When will the shareholders wake up and realise that these blokes need the arse. Someone has to save them from themselves.

Going Boeing

3rd Jun 2011, 22:54

So the Board members were briefed on the current industrial situation - presumably by the same executives who came up with outlandish figures of 26% pay rise and who simply don't understand the job security issues.

If the Board were to also be briefed by AIPA, ALAEA, etc, they would then have a more balanced understanding of the issues and thus would be able to make better decisions to take Qantas forward. Not going to happen though - especially with Leigh Clifford in the chair. :ugh:

rodchucker

3rd Jun 2011, 22:56

Pity the well established kiss of death was not there..."The CEO has my full support."

The fact that he felt compelled to go public also speaks volumes.

bandit2

3rd Jun 2011, 22:59

If the International business is losing I'd like to know where the forecast $600-800 million profit is coming from. Surely JQ isn't bringing all that cash in. Looks to me that, we're not making enough money to keep their greedy ego's & wallets happy.

hi-speed tape

3rd Jun 2011, 23:28

"What Planet are these people on".
There you go people, straight out of Cliffords mouth. Says it all really about what these"people" think of us, the workers. We obviously, in his opinion, don't have the mental capacity to form an educated view on the current problems facing the company & the industry. Which probably means that I had it all wrong in regards to my views on Strong, Dixon, Jackson etc. They must have all been "you beaut, tip top people" !!!!
Damn, when will I ever get it right.

Shark Patrol

3rd Jun 2011, 23:31

'What planet are these people on given the competitive environment?'

Hopefully the planet where these management people get shown the door so that Qantas can return to the respected, quality airline it once was.

Bring on the YES vote!!!

Sunfish

3rd Jun 2011, 23:35

There is cognitive dissonance at work here. This does not add up.

Does Chairman Clifford distinguish between "return on Capital" and "return on funds employed". Which is it? There is, alas, again no explanation of what the number actually is. This in itself has always been highly suspicious. Just what do the major shareholders want? 200% per annum? The risk adjusted premium over the long term bond rate?

1. Jetstar is supposedly making a profit by selling tea and muffins. That isn't going to produce an "acceptable return" ever.

2. We hear rumours that QF mainline has been loaded up to the eyeballs with Jetstar costs. We also know that internal cost allocation practices can be used to make any part of any company profitable by the stroke of a pen.

The answer to that is to perform contribution analysis which looks at gross profit before overheads are allocated. If Chairman Clifford was able to produce this, and show that each section of the business was carrying its fair share of the load, this would make his argument stronger.

3. Qantas invested in 20(?) A 380 aircraft for its international division. Presumably this investment was made with the full knowledge of fuel price inflation and maintenance costs? You cannot tell me that this investment was predicated on driving the engineering, cabin crew and pilot workforce into penury?

4. If a company is in such a parlous state that merely maintaining the purchasing power of its employees wages (which is all that is apparently sought) is beyond it, then God help the business and its shareholders.

5. Finally, what have the major shareholders been briefed on that is not common knowledge among small shareholders?

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't satisfy.

If the company decides it needs to outsource overseas, then I think that the travelling public had better start pushing for an open skies policy.

To put it another way; Qantas has charged Australians a premium to fly on an Australian owned and operated airline for some Thirty plus years. That premium was to do with the fact that Qantas was perceived to be operated by Pilots, cabin crew and engineers that had superior training and experience to the rest.

If that is not the case, and Chairman Clifford indicates that it isn't to be in future, then the public has every right to demand a more competitive market.

To put it another way; The Qantas brand was built by demonstrably superior crew and engineering performance. It was not built by management, in fact it would appear that QF's performance these days is maintained despite managements attempts to destroy the business

To put it yet another way; exactly why is the Board struggling so mightily in the seemingly impossible (according to them) task of bailing out the Titanic?

This situation is starting to smell like the APA bid.

Lindsay Fox? Solly Lew? Jamie Packer? What is going on here?

Budfox

4th Jun 2011, 00:08

Will Jamie Packer come in and take J.P. Morgans slice?

Sure why not hes a gambling man after all :p

The share price is under quite a bit of selling pressure the buy side is looking quite sick this last week. Just looking at the chart its still in a downtrend and isnt looking to reverse just quite yet. $1.75 ?? maybe, maybe not. That is possible though if the likes of the US fall off another cliff :eek:
Sub $2 here we come.
Now remind me whos steering the ship again ? :(

waren9

4th Jun 2011, 00:17

Well said Sunfish. Exactly what I've been thinking.

I hope Sandilands reads your posts.

Capt Kremin

4th Jun 2011, 00:54

The March Bitre figures don't seem to support anything Clifford says.

The average Load factor of ALL airlines operating into Australia was 67.8%

Qantas mainline market share figures 19.4%; up by 0.1%. Pax figures Down by 1.2%. Total Average Load factor of 75%.

Jetstar International market share figures 8.5%: down by 0.1% Total average Load factor of 70%. (lowest Load factor of any Int LCC operating into OZ).

Big Bad Emirates market share 7.2%: Pax figures DOWN by 12.6%. Total average Load factor of 52%.

Big Bad Cathay Pacific market share 4.2%: Pax figures DOWN by 16.2%. Total average Load factor of 63%.

Big Bad SIA market share of 9.1%: Pax figures Down by 5.1%. Total average load factor of 71%.

Mr Clifford, your premium airline carried more passengers in and out of Australia by a factor of two over your closest rival. It did so with the highest load factor of any of your major competitors and your "fantastic business" LCC. Daylight was second.

And yet you say the business isn't making money and this is the fault of pilots and engineers whose total cost to you wouldn't be 5% of the operating costs of the airline?

Get real Mr Clifford. Mainline is taking delivery of expensive A380's. These are being paid for out of cash flow. One day soon that will end. We are not fooled, and unlike some toady journalists, we are prepared to ask the right questions.

full disclosure

4th Jun 2011, 01:22

Here he goes again. He uses the same script as Qantas/JQ management. They publicly ridicule their own staff, and use doctored figures of 26% pay rises for the pilots etc to try and convince the public the staff are mentally challenged. He is trying the same trick but to the shareholders. Why do they do this? Because they are worried. Once the pilots, engineers and cabin crew start protected industrial action the board will have no choice but to get rid of these managers and CEO's as the staff hold the power, and without their compliance and assistance the company CANNOT succeed. It doesn't have to go down that road, but management, and the board it appears, are hell bent on destroying the company no matter what the cost. Would you invest in a company that is willing to send it broke just so they can feel good about winning their war against their own staff for no reason other than greed? Investors should be pulling out their money now before the share price nosedives in the next few months. When the staff are saying the company is going down the drain, investors should take notice.

rodchucker

4th Jun 2011, 01:47

This game is getting worse as the numbers don't support the rhetoric.

If privatisation is the end game this will be one of the biggest frauds ever committed on the Australian public and one which should rightly receive sanctions.

I do say IF but they have form that no one should forget.

There is just no counter argument being put into the public arena by anyone!!!!Where are the so called investigative journalists??

What The

4th Jun 2011, 02:32

I would say that Sunfish and Capt Kremin are spot on and there are underhanded activities at work here.

Maybe we can work together and investigate this ourselves.

Has Kremin been compiling data for some time and built a factual database?

Who knows the links to external parties that the Board and Executive members of Qantas have?

Is Ben Sandilands the man to chase this if provided with factual information? He appears to be the only one prepared to print what most are thinking. We can get him exposure through various social network sites via links etc.

Thinktank needed....

Ka.Boom

4th Jun 2011, 03:11

Obama used it in the last election
It has been used in the middle east to co ordinate dissent
An advocacy group called Get Up may also be useful

slurper1

4th Jun 2011, 03:35

It is a shame that no one has the salary/bonus package of all of QF's board members and senior managers. It would be interesting to publish a full page advertisement of how much these oxygen thieves leech out of Qantas. It seems ok to pay obscene packages to these buffoons well above what other executives and managers at DJ/BA/SQ/AA/CX and NZ are renumerated.
Some questions for Clifford and Joyce:
What have you achieved since your tenure at QF? How much value???
How have you promoted QF as a premium brand?
Why do you talk down QF international instead of publically talking it up?
Why have you not paid a dividend and why is our share price nearing $2?
What have you done to engage with your staff (not b/s retoric)?
Why is industrial relations handled so poorly by QF? Do you realise that the unions are actually your loyal employees who are alarmed by the mismanagement of them and their airline?
Why are we not operating 777's?
Why was QF fined for priced fixing? Who is responsible at board level?
Why do you pay consultants big money yet cannot be bothered to ask your front line staff what passengers are telling them?
Do you really think our pax would rather fly JQ than QF?
Why are you nickel and diming QF pax? Is QF full service or low cost?
Why have you introduced a complex greedy bagagge policy when DJ is just stepping up serious competition domestically?
How much does JQ cost QF from the balance sheets??

How do you justify your renumeration in regard to above questions?
I would of had 3 letters on file and fired if I had failed in my position as badly as the CEO and Chairman have in their roles.
:rolleyes:Its a no brainer-vote for me- I will do either position for $80000 p/a and fix Qantas up -Hey sacking Clifford and Joyce and hiring me could be my first few million saved!

stubby jumbo

4th Jun 2011, 03:43

Excellent posts -Sunfish and Capt Kremin.

I have been in contact with GetUp. They are interested,though are waiting for some political and media "noise" first. Well maybe the Senate Inquiry findings could give them some fodder.

I am truly astounded at that the language the so called Qantas "Leaders" use:
...."if they don't take up this offer (APA bid) they are mental"- Margaret Jackson.
....."Behaving like Kamikaze's" -Alan Joyce
......'What planet are these people on given the competitive environment?"-Clifford.

I 'll tell you what planet we are on buddy-Its EARTH. A place where human beings live. People with Families who are trying to do their bit.

But, Clowns like you living in your penthouses etc etc are so out of touch with reality- & blame others when things are not going the way they WANT it.

You have a responsibility to the Shareholders -sure. But what about the actual People who work at this joint.

"Oh yeah-costs are going up-lets just sack the workers and bully others to take pay freezes ,pay cuts and T&C's cuts."

Your arrogance and incompetence are going to bite you on the arse big time over this (and other stuff ups you have "presided" over)

I haven't forgotten the day when you were onboard in 2K and we had a "rolling delay" on a full flight. What did you do??? Bolt to the Qantas P/C lounge ( before anyone else was allowed off). No- introducing your self to the crew, No-is there any thing I can do or say?, Do you want me to talk to the other P/C or J/C pax.??
Its the little things buddy- that make a difference for people. You failed.
Now pack up your Black Leather Gucci bag and leave us to out Planet.

Its 2 minutes to midnight for Qantas. We need REAL STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP.
Making once loyal staff redundant as a way of cutting costs is short sighted, puerile and from a business perspective-unacceptable.

hi-speed tape

4th Jun 2011, 07:12

Thanks SJ, that saved me writing. Well said, I felt your passion & thats what the "upper echelon are missing, some of us do our bit day in day out passionately, Xmas, Easter, Birthdays, Ramadan, barmitsvahs (hope spelling ok). We don't ask for $$$$$$ in the millions just a "fair go".
But then again, what would they know about a fair go.
As for the leprechaun ....... Visa check please !!!!! Maybe he's on a 457 & it's now void !!!!!!!
BORDER SECURITY, how good would that look on the telly !!!! just one more backpacker kicked out.

ampclamp

4th Jun 2011, 07:26

Mark Colvin who now hosts PM on ABC radio did a number on Qantas years ago. Probably 4 corners. Maybe he or a 4 corners mate is interested now ?
Anyone skilled in web hosting "Keep Qantas Australian" or similar. Hit counter, comments, online petition etc. The message needs to get out there.
The engineers have largely been successful in getting the off shoring message across but needs to be converted into shareholder and political pressure.
How about a sticky with the emails of all House of reps and senators?
Hammer them , get them asking questions. It is about skilled, well paid jobs, technology transfer and the obvious strategic value in having a viable national carrier that is actually Australian not an ASX stock code with a myriad of off shore entities and a bunch of semi skilled part timers and a very well paid ex-com and board.

sisemen

4th Jun 2011, 14:33

I suppose that, at $2 a share, it wouldn't be beyond the wit of man for employees to actually purchase some shares and get a voice in how the airline is run? Perhaps as a shareholder an employee might get a little more perspective as might the management.

Just a thought.

But don't pull the pin on 17 June - do it on 21 June and then I'm happy to be stuck in Brizzy for a few more days!

Romulus

5th Jun 2011, 02:36

Will Jamie Packer come in and take J.P. Morgans slice?

Very unlikely. Bear in mind that the vast majority of the top end shareholders listed in every company report are the companies acting as(the legally required) independent holders of shares for superannuation funds. JP Morgan in this instance does not have the right to determine whether or not to sell the shares, they act on instructions from the relevant fund.

Arnold E

5th Jun 2011, 02:56

they act on instructions from the relevant fund. as(the legally required) independent holders of shares for superannuation funds.

Jeez, I hope my super fund doesn't hold Q shares.:eek:

Romulus

5th Jun 2011, 04:11

Jeez, I hope my super fund doesn't hold Q shares.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

Odds are they do, most super funds have some form of index tracking component which follows the weighting of shares so if QF represents 1% of teh overall market then 1% of your funds would be in QF shares.

Of course, the figures used aren't accurate, feel free to insert relevant figures to make the statement accurate at any given time.

Hugh Gorgen

5th Jun 2011, 09:41

Originally Posted by ArnoldE
Jeez, I hope my super fund doesn't hold Q shares.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

ArnoldE,

This comment had me in tears. (for 3 reasons)

1. Hillarious stuff
2. I work for Qantas
3. I have Qantas shares.

runesta

5th Jun 2011, 12:14

Clifford's only mission is to destroy the unions and play games to piss off the workforce - he does not have a bigger picture.

ironic, given unions are simply an offshoot of management(s) that fail to take care of their own workforce properly.

In return the workforce looks to unions to help support their cause which actually makes unions more relevant and stronger.

When the senior heads of the company play games with its entire workforce except those at the top echelon how can they ever drive the message that their people are the company's most important assets? :ugh:

yes, a management that managed to come up with 1 business class product (Skybed) in 10 years :D what a great achievement for a 'premium' airline :rolleyes:

B772

5th Jun 2011, 12:29

Romulus.

Due to the decline in the QF share price the All Ordinaries Index Weighting is now .36%. BTW the share price will drop below $2 on Monday 6 June. The next level of major support is $1.38.

Tom Park the CEO of Paperlinx was pushed out the door last year due to a collapsing share price. I wonder if the same will apply to Alan Joyce ?

The Green Goblin

6th Jun 2011, 02:07

What annoys me the most is AJ can't even pronounce the name Qantas correctly.

He pronounces it 'Qwarntas'

We all know it's 'Qwontas'

I suspect with the share price below $2 today, he will be getting the call soon :D

esreverlluf

6th Jun 2011, 05:28

Precipitous fall in shareholder value, unprecedentedly low employee engagement, unprecedented industrial strife - just give it away and let someone else have go Alan.

Discuss.

dragon man

6th Jun 2011, 05:41

What is there to discuss, correct, correct, correct.AJ and the board are the only ones who seem not to get it.

Xcel

6th Jun 2011, 05:46

Greedy little people in a sea of distress
Keep your more to receive your less
Unimpressed by material excess

lol oh so fitting

what I've got U gotta give it to your shareholders
what I've got u gotta give to employees

good song good song

chockchucker

6th Jun 2011, 23:54

If there was any further evidence that the board, or institutional shareholders, needed to immeadiately remove this out-of-his-depth and over-his-head CEO, it can be found in this mornings Plane Talking..........................

Qantas CEO continues to downtalk the brand and reverse the realities
June 7, 2011 – 7:55 am, by Ben Sandilands

Qantas is making a dismal spectacle of itself at the IATA conference at Singapore.

In this morning’s reports by invited and hosted media the group’s CEO, Alan Joyce, says he is not going to spend any more money on “the premium international operation until they (start) to return their cost of capital” (SMH) and will “reconsider new aircraft orders” (The Australian.)

In these reports he also signals a new communications strategy from Qantas to rubbish its own core brand, by describing Jetstar and the frequent flyer program as subsidising the full service operation.

This is a reversal of the realities of massive subsidies or transfers of assets from Qantas to Jetstar, which if these inputs were truthfully detailed, would show a very different situation in terms of the relative performances of the punitive Jetstar experience and the premium Qantas divisions.

There are also inconsistencies in what Joyce is reported to have said. While he claims to be reconsidering new orders and is not injecting new funds into the international Qantas division, he is still taking all of the undelivered A380 order, which if true means they are suddenly ‘free’.

These statements seem to belong to the same genre as those claiming the pilot union agreement for a 2.5 percent pay rise per annum over three years equals an unsustainable 26 percent cost impost. The only thing unsustainable about this is the arithmetic. The only way to get anywhere near 26 percent is to count recurring costs that are already present as a continuing cost of doing business, and have nothing to do with base pay.

This claim by management is about as credible as its submission to the Senate inquiry into pilot training and airline safety, in which Joyce failed to acknowledge that the reason why a Jetstar A320 nearly crashed at Melbourne Airport in 2007 was the result of improper changes to the approved flight manual procedure for flying a ‘go around’ and that he was the then CEO of that airline and responsible for the inferior and deeply flawed decisions taken by the carrier.

The burning questions this morning are why Joyce would slam his own premium brand and verbal its pilots and engineers at the leading international forum for airline managements only hours after the Qantas share price out-plunged the general retreat on the ASX?

Why does he rubbish the premium product which has been his responsibility for two years? Why does it describe its engineering and pilot unions as ‘rogue’ when their actions to date are lawful and fully within the prescriptions of Fair Work Australia, and are a consequence of an inability of management to secure a timely resolution of expiring industrial agreements.

One of the obvious reasons why the Qantas premium product is in trouble is that it isn’t competitively premium, which is his responsibility, and has a route structure which is variously inefficient or impracticable for many of the travellers that have crossed over to Emirates and Singapore Airlines, which is also his responsibility.

The latest act of management genius is a low frequency, range challenged flight to Dalls Fort Worth in a jet that can’t do the distance reliably, adds extra stops along the route for some passengers, and occasionally deprives them of their checked luggage as well as offering them a cabin amenity inferior to that on Qantas A380s.

Qantas may get soft media in Australia, and a soft ride from those who are indulged with free entry to the Chairmans Lounges. But Joyce is in a room in Singapore where has competitors can see right through him, and must wonder how much longer the airline will continue to provide them with easy pickings.

The Green Goblin

7th Jun 2011, 00:15

And with JB announcing a Singapore Airlines tie up it's game over Joyce.

Get back in your boat and paddle home!

the_company_spy

7th Jun 2011, 00:24

So it would seem the end game is near. It doesn't take Einstein to work out what is going on here, what a lot of posters here have been saying for a long time, once the parasites have gourged on the host and left it paralysed, I'm betting there will be some slight of hand whereby exco and the board separate j* from the group and then flog it off for a not insignificant sum.

What is the next move?

600ft-lb

7th Jun 2011, 00:41

There it is right there. The justification that Qantas will never operate the 787 and all future A330's will go to Jetstar in the mean time.

It's unbelievable that he can get away with that. Until 'they' start making money... They is YOU Alan. You can blame everyone else all you like for YOUR inadequacies if it makes you feel better, Borghetti has outsmarted you, you look like a chump championing the bogan carrier as the national carrier of this country.

ampclamp

7th Jun 2011, 00:46

I'll give him a few months left in the job.

Oldmate

7th Jun 2011, 00:48

Enjoy your last trip as a Qantas employee Alan.

This clown will be looking for a different circus by the end of the month.

ANCDU

7th Jun 2011, 01:27

Oldmate i hope you are correct, but i think Joyce and Clifford are here to stay. There is a plan behind all this posturing and stupidity by the upper management. A good board and the investors would have given AJ and Clifford the boot already if there wasn't some underlying plan behind all of this angst. This whole episode should be front page news in the business end of town, but its VERY quiet. The pollies are very quiet too. Unfortunately unless some miracle occurs in the next month or so i think in 12 months time we will see a very different Roo in our skies, can't wait to see clifford and joyce hug and kiss at the equity buyout press meeting.:yuk:

Unfortunately its the original employees of this great australian icon, the pilots and engineers, that seem to be the only people in the company that have the will and the means to see it survive.

ozaggie

7th Jun 2011, 01:41

I feel totally nauseated by this story. Why do we time and time again allow these munchkins pick off our history, experience, goodwill, and turn it into a line on a spreadsheet for some half-arsed investor group. QF is to Australia what tulips are to Holland, a part of our national psyche. What we were once proud of, we are now becoming increasingly more
embarrassed by. Excommunicate the leprechaun, at this rate the rain-man will never get to the tables in Vegas.
Pilots, Engineers, Bagchuckers, Checkies and CC, ya gotta win this fight for all of us Aussies, the people that still believe in the Aussie fair go.
We want our country back, and QF is part of this countries identity.
Good Luck.
OA

Sunfish

7th Jun 2011, 01:51

Something smells about what is going on. I suspect Qantas is going to divest itself of International and sell it to private interests for a song.

limelight

7th Jun 2011, 02:07

So where are the shareholders? The only way to topple this mob is to get the institutions together and vote them out. To rubbish your own brand in front of an international forum is almost treason.

Sunfish, indeed there is the reek of dastardly deeds here.

balance

7th Jun 2011, 02:11

This clown will be looking for a different circus by the end of the month.

And this circus will be looking for a different clown! Forgive me, but they all seem the same underneath. Accountants who know the value of a dollar, but have no clue about the value of a person...

Something smells about what is going on. I suspect Qantas is going to divest itself of International and sell it to private interests for a song.

Agreed, the whole thing stinks, Sunny, but I can't quite figure out what or why this is happenning. It simply defies logic. But I think the Qantas Sale Act might get in the way of divesting the international arm though...

schlong hauler

7th Jun 2011, 02:49

Does anybody think that Joyce and Clifford are softening up the market for a major change in tactics. Perhaps A380s to J* between Asia and London. Fill them full of economy seats and charge for everything else that a passenger may like once up and away. Captive market 700-800 punters. Could it work?

ampclamp

7th Jun 2011, 03:03

Well... Q eng lost a tender for a major reconfig of the A380. Why reconfig a new aircraft?
I'll let that one simmer for a bit.

somewhereat1l

7th Jun 2011, 03:17

It could work because they would sell it as a Qantas flight then put the customers on a JQ flight. Too late at the gate to do anything.

I was visiting the top end of Oz recently and a group of tourists were complaining about Qantas, many different reasons but the main one being they had paid for Qantas domestic flights and ended up on Jetstar flights. They were not happy and told everyone on our dinner table and surrounding areas.

assasin8

7th Jun 2011, 03:21

Gee and I wonder why we are losing market share? Must be those greedy pilots and engineers! Why does an Airline even need pilots and engineers... Let's just employ accountants and marketing yuppies... That'll work... Yeah!:ugh:

Oldmate

7th Jun 2011, 03:32

1/. Run down the Qantas brand and the share price, while rapidly building J*
2/. Provoke a major industrial storm
3/. Use this to justify rapidly deploying J* on selected Qantas routes
4/. Sell off Jetstar + assets to private equity buyers such as KKR, to "save" Qantas
5/. "sorry, that didn't work", Q into receivership, its the governments problem now.
6/. Reposition J* in the market, with lower cost base and only Virgin to compete with
7/. We now have a far leaner airline with new planes, cheaper staff and no pesky Qantas Sale Act.

mcgrath50

7th Jun 2011, 09:26

So if QF Int gets out from under the control of these guys, isn't that a good thing? Someone can be gotten in who can run things properly say 'look old management were :mad: and we are now going to win you all back'.

Maybe we want this end game now?

the-flying-z

7th Jun 2011, 11:16

http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/ss64/Groover158/Aircraft%20Concepts/JetstarA380White.jpg

Angle of Attack

7th Jun 2011, 11:24

Pilots and cabin crew could work for free and it makes zilch in terms of profitablity of the QF product, this is a management fail and they should worry about it not the employees. Bring it Joyce just bring it, cant wait for it to start!:)

David75

7th Jun 2011, 11:32

Something smells about what is going on. I suspect Qantas is going to divest itself of International and sell it to private interests for a song.

If the ACCC would let it I can see VB taking over Qantas, then SIA and ANZ taking over VB. Not just yet - let it go for another 6 months - pilots on strike, engineers on strike. VB step in to save the day.

Ka.Boom

7th Jun 2011, 11:45

Borghetti is a double agent ?

RATpin

7th Jun 2011, 11:47

A J-Virus 380,just think how many muffins you could carry?

TIMA9X

7th Jun 2011, 15:35

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-gcw--4lXFHM/Te5Dac1tPPI/AAAAAAAAA3o/889YHEuSkRY/s912/JetstarA380lepbig34.jpg

Hi the-flying-z, thanks for the pic but I needed to sort out the registration, VH-TIM did my head in. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=picasacid&feature=player_embedded

73to91

7th Jun 2011, 21:59

The former senior Qantas executive was also asked whether he had any advice for Qantas's boss, Alan Joyce. ''I am sure that his board gives him advice. I don't need to do that,'' he said with a straight face. ''It's the role of boards - so don't read anything into that.''

from the SMH this morning,

Read more: Virgin Australia's John Borghetti signs Singapore Airlines deal (http://www.smh.com.au/business/borghetti-looks-to-the-future-8230-bonus-20110607-1fqso.html#ixzz1Od79uFN6)
JB having a little, no having a big dig at the QF board, priceless.

B772

8th Jun 2011, 01:40

Alan Joyce has just accepted the position of Chairman of the Board of Governers of IATA from June 2012. I would have thought Joyce had enough on his plate working full time for the QF shareholders. No doubt the QF shareholders will be picking up the tab for the travelling expenses and everything else Joyce will be doing on behalf of IATA (next AGM is in Beijing).

ozaggie

8th Jun 2011, 01:47

The arrogance of this little Irish prick is absolutely beyond belief

TIMA9X

8th Jun 2011, 01:56

Alan Joyce has just accepted the position of Chairman of the Board of Governers of IATA from June 2012. I would have thought Joyce had enough on his plate Doesn't say much for IATA, no one else wanted the chair, or is there something else going on here?

The Kelpie

8th Jun 2011, 02:05

Standby for the announcment from him that his responsibilities at IATA are not leaving him enough time to dedicate to the Qantas Group and therefore he has tendered his resignation to the Board, who have reluctantly accepted it.

Blah blah blah

More to Follow

The Kelpie

The Green Goblin

8th Jun 2011, 02:16

I'd say you're on the money as usual Kelpie :cool:

Good riddance of the little man.

I can taste the celebrations already!

ampclamp

8th Jun 2011, 02:42

IATA's gain is our gain.

esreverlluf

8th Jun 2011, 03:03

Let's just hope that the Kelpie is on the money!

bandit2

8th Jun 2011, 03:08

Let`s hope it`s a tall chair so he can see over the table!

The lens

8th Jun 2011, 06:07

At least someone's moving forward...

WorthWhat

8th Jun 2011, 06:30

Hmmm! Would seem that 'change' is on the horizon.

Virgin Australia’s alliances have added urgency to Qantas’ quest to reshape its own struggling international business to reduce its vulnerability as an end-of-the-line carrier. John Borghetti’s alliances are potentially disruptive to transforming the nature of Qantas’ international business via the creation of an extensive Asia Pacific presence.

Source: The heat in Virgin's Asian accord | Stephen Bartholomeusz | Commentary | Business Spectator (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Borghetti-Virgin-alliance-Singapore-Airlines-domes-pd20110607-HL6AM?OpenDocument&src=kgb)

GlobalMaster

9th Jun 2011, 00:24

You're worth more money Whatty.

According to a statement from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Qantas Airways Ltd has won interim regulatory approval for a joint business agreement with American Airlines. The ACCC said today, the airlines would coordinate services on their trans-Tasman and trans-Pacific routes under the proposed deal.
Further, according to a report in the Herald Sun today, Qantas Airways Ltd may cut a deal with China Eastern Airlines, which is headquartered in Shanghai, to set up a link to Asia and remain competitive on international routes.
And the Speculation gets even better, with some analysts saying there will be a full blown Qantas-MAS tie-up.

As they say in the comic strips, there's Klingons everywhere Captain. Looks to me that the Unions will need to come up up a lot more than protected industrial action.

WoodenEye

9th Jun 2011, 00:57

Agree. Very big changes on the horizon.

Am only aware of one strategy more efficient than the Globalised Network Strategy now being pursued by Qantas and Virgin Australia, and that is the Integrated Airline Strategy being pushed by British Airways, et al.

With bold enough vision, it may still be possible to keep the jobs in Australia, but only if employees can get in on the discussions.

Good luck to all involved.

chockchucker

9th Jun 2011, 01:10

Obviously, as evidenced by your need to reply personally to Mr Sandilands Alan, the truth really does hurt. Inconvenient as it may be to you.

Too bad all you can offer is excuses and attempt to lay the blame for the current direction of Qantas at everyone else but yourself.

You were clearly the wrong person for the Job and you're entirely out of your depth when in comes to adding long term value to a full service carrier.

Perhaps you should take your 'talents' to IATA sooner rather than later.

Ben, keep up the good work.

bobhoover

9th Jun 2011, 01:15

Nice try AJ, as always your comments are vague and lacking substance.

Nassensteins Monster

9th Jun 2011, 02:18

Sigh. Borghetti was the right choice for CEO. A man who lived and breathed Qantas. A businessman - not a manager - who understood that it is better to grow a business by spending a dollar to make two, rather than save a dollar and stand still.

TIMA9X

9th Jun 2011, 02:54

These are just a few of the matters you have raised in your recent pieces, many of which you frame as personal criticisms of my leadership and that of the Qantas board Without Qantas you would have never have had Jetstar, your baby you protect so much . It is my view, AJ you are playing with the figures to make "baby" look good, at the expense of its big brother, favourtism. The jury is still out whether the LCC model in OZ will have long legs marketing wise. JB is running rings around you going for the premium market and Tiger, (Ryanair) LCC model is struggling .....

AJ, you slag off your staff and run down your Mainline product in the press at every opportunity. You are so out of touch with your staff, you might as well be running the company from Ireland, it is such that you have no understanding what it is to be Australian. This is the message you, the board and your executive team are portraying to all Australians. Under normal circumstances it is not good to play the man in the media (I am unashamedly guilty of this) but mate on this issue, it's hard to separate the man and the ball as you keep running with the ball up your jumper! Image wise, you are doing for Qantas what Muammer Gaddafi did for Libya. If you can't get this concept in your head then you are the wrong guy for the job, period.
Miranda Devine saw this a couple of weeks ago...

The real Qantas kamikaze - to be sure to be sure | Daily Telegraph Miranda Devine Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_real_qantas_kamikaze/desc/#commentsmore)

Qantas’ current industrial strife is a worry to fans of the national carrier. Why is a newly arrived Irish CEO with an incomprehensible accent attacking the pilots, of all people, and calling them “rogues” and “kamikazes”.
Clearly Alan Joyce, 44, doesn’t understand Australians’ attachment to Qantas.
Just read the comments......:ugh:

The ball's in yours and the boards court re the direction it gets hit. In the public's eye the backhanders served up by you against your Aussie staff probably has a lot to do with why the traveling public are exploring other airline options when choosing their next flight, they are fed up with the continual blame game, it's all the staff's fault, probably a key factor why Q are losing market share. It's not rocket science. Qantas is an Australian icon, it is still an nationalistic issue whether you like it or not.

The Green Goblin

9th Jun 2011, 03:03

I love it how AJ feels compelled to spell his name in capital letters :D

The little man who couldn't :p

Stick it to him BS :)

dragon man

9th Jun 2011, 03:14

He doesnt want to or cant answer the difficult questions. No investment in the mainline model ie IFEs that work full flat sleepers on the 400s. Why the EBAs have got to PIA stage and his refusal to meet BJ of AIPA one on one (no Oldmeadow consulting present) to try and resolve the issues). The belief of most staff and others that mainline give Jetstar a free kick financially. The wasted money in Jetstar Asia and Pacific and the money that they have lost. And lastly why so many staff are so pissed off with the destruction of the iconic brand and if he cant see that then he is really beyond help. As for Dallas i think you will find that BS likes the idea its just that they are doing it with the wrong aircraft ( another question that AJ fails to answer).

whatever6719

9th Jun 2011, 03:39

Right on Dragon.
Seems that no one answers questions anymore. Its just evasive bull s&*%!!
The only thing they wont be able to avoid is the plummeting share price.

That is something they will have no choice but to answer!!

Sunfish

9th Jun 2011, 03:52

Mr Joyce's letter:

Qantas has been profitable every year since privatisation, including in each year of my time as CEO, and including at the height of the global financial crisis when airlines around the world were closing their doors, as well as winning many awards for product and service.

.........if accepted their claims would place an unsustainable cost burden on the airline

Mr. Joyce boasts of the long term profitability of the airline, yet in another place states that even maintaining the purchasing power of Pilots and Engineers wages is too much for this airline to bear???????????

In other words, the entire future profitability of Australias National carrier, and the billions of dollars of shareholders funds involved, hangs on NOT giving Australian employees some element of job security and a maintaining the purchasing power of their wages????

This is cognitive dissonance at its worst.

I can just see what must have been said at Board level some years ago "OK Geoff we will approve purchase of 20 A380's because your strategy of destroying the Australian labor force is a winner."

These fukcwits are fighting the last war. Who the Fukc buys 20 A 380's yet calls the airline that will fly them a "legacy airline? What is going on here???????"

bandit2

9th Jun 2011, 08:06

Since when does AJ break news for Malaysian Airlines??? It is encouraging though, to see that AJ doesn`t bag Malaysian Airlines as quickly he bags his own airline & its employee`s!! AJ don`t let the door hit you on your a&%e on the way out.

BP2197

9th Jun 2011, 08:54

No flat beds in -400? Isn't there an extensive investment program to rectify this in the ER's and S, T & U?

I guess the other point which doesn't seem so clear is what is the cost of an A380? Call it $300m - 20x $300m = $6,000,000,000 ($6billion)

What has the investment in Jetstar been? 9xA330 at say $100m=$900,000,000 ($900mil)

Lets at least been factual, there has been and continues to be enormous investment in mainline and no where near as much in JQ Int.

ampclamp

9th Jun 2011, 09:10

How many A320s? They sure as $#!t did not pay for all of that with buns and blankets. 787s to come.
Look, JQ is a legit and probably necessary venture and had to be funded by mum until set up but...said it many times but I just want the buggers to be honest about it all and stop the running down of the flagship and the constant slagging it and the people there get.
We all know the place is inefficient but that is something the managers must deal with. Too many empires and non productive types. AJ said he would fix it. Epic failure where I am.

HF3000

9th Jun 2011, 10:09

The original point of JQ was to annoy DJ and allow QF to concentrate on it's main money making product. Immediatley prior to JQ, QF started to experiment with all-economy QF domestic services. It didn't work. So they reconfigured QF back to two-class and set up JQ.

This annoyed DJ because they had to stay low-fare and low-product and couldn't compete with both JQ and QF mainline.

Then, the point of JQ Asia was to annoy Singair and Tiger. Then, the point of Tiger Australia was to counter-annoy JQ and QF in an equally childish response. Not really intended to make money, just annoy.

These annoying airlines are designed to keep the majors and their competitors from making the big money that proper airlines make. Yes it's cyclical, but there's big money there for those who do it right.

It's a bit like having a Kmart and a BiLo to distract the BigW and Franklins customers to make sure your Myer stores maintain market share. Now that's possibly a bad analogy because that company has gone where it's gone, but rest assured, BiLo was never it's saviour. It was there to annoy.

Now, all this was all kind-of working, and pre-GFC the QF operation was looking pretty good. But somewhere along the way someone got sidetracked.

In the couple of years pre-GFC, QF Mainline made 2 billion dollars profit in 2 years. They did it with Australian pilots and Engineers on current EBAs. In fact, they made so much money they had to pay an extra special dividend so as not to be embarrassed by how much money they had in the bank. This is more money than JQ could possibly make in 10 or 20 years even with the creative accounting bolstering their supposed profit.

That someone got lost in the plot and is obviously still sidetracked.

There are billion dollar profits ahead, if the right product is invested in and pursued and managed properly. There are plenty of first class airlines looking after their staff and their product who are testament to that. Qantas can still do that, and JQ will still serve it's annoying purpose, but it will never replace the money making machine.

Management permitting.

The Black Panther

9th Jun 2011, 23:50

Qantas announced today the following changes to it's business which will have immediate material effects.

Qantas will cancel and sell all A380 orders and A330 currently on the it's register. Most A330's operated but the mainline business will be sold to Jetstar.

Qantas will purchase 28 B777 with the B787 orders to remain.

All Rockwell Collins IFE systems will be replaced with Panasonic

Employees will be offered job security in the round of agreements which were welcomed by all unions. The company will partake in a share buy back scheme and offered employees and union a 10% stake in the company using a 0% loan facility in ensure future relationship in good faith.

Qantas will aggressively seek all third party work on Australian airports including maintenance, ramp services and customer check in.

Qantas has agreed to invest in the future of Aviation maintenance in Australia by re establishing the engine overhaul facilities in Sydney with new sites in Newcastle and Avalon.

Qantas is investing in future Australian pilots by increasing cadet intake and creating a new mentoring system.

Voluntary redundancies have been offered across the board allowing a breathe of fresh air across the company.

Alan Joyce has agreed to stand down with Leigh Clifford. Further announcements will be made regard the withdrawing of Jestar in foreign markets and new marketing to regain lost market share in the international business.

Qantas share price bounced 8% to $2.06

havick

9th Jun 2011, 23:52

Black Panther is smoking a crack pipe

unionist1974

10th Jun 2011, 00:09

T B P , Keep wishing , one day somewhere you may be granted your wish list . But not any time soon at QF.

FGD135

10th Jun 2011, 01:21

Mr. Joyce boasts of the long term profitability of the airline, yet in another place states that even maintaining the purchasing power of Pilots and Engineers wages is too much for this airline to bear???????????

Sunfish,

Even you would know that profitability in the past does not guarantee profitability in the future.

The essence of the Qantas position is that there will be no future profit unless current costs (pilot salaries) can be dramatically reduced.

From the Qantas perspective, this is the whole point of the issue.

There is no evidence on this thread (or any of the dozen others) that anybody actually grasps this important little detail.

No future profit = no future job. It is that simple.

If you think Joyce is lying, then just sit back and watch what happens to your job.

whatever6719

10th Jun 2011, 01:42

That may be the case fgd but why do we still see huge remuneration for the executive?? If we are facing such dire times and our cupboards are bare, why did they get a 58% pay rise not so long ago??
If they were serious they would forgo any bonuses for the forseeable future to back up their rhetoric .

Sunfish

10th Jun 2011, 07:07

FGD:

Sunfish,

Even you would know that profitability in the past does not guarantee profitability in the future.

The essence of the Qantas position is that there will be no future profit unless current costs (pilot salaries) can be dramatically reduced.

From the Qantas perspective, this is the whole point of the issue.

There is no evidence on this thread (or any of the dozen others) that anybody actually grasps this important little detail.

No future profit = no future job. It is that simple.

If you think Joyce is lying, then just sit back and watch what happens to your job.

If the entire profitability of Qantas pivoted around maintaining the purchasing power of Pilots and engineers wages, I would have either slashed my wrists or run for the exits long ago.

The story of Qantas is one of Mis - investment and bad management decisions and they go back Ten years, and the continue to make the same mistakes - spending when they should be saving, and penny pinching when they should be investing.

The bonus driven culture of the place has resulted in managers adopting very short time horizons and optimising management decisions with respect to their own prosperity, not the company's.

The writing is already on the wall since the LCC?Legacy divide is already breaking down as the LCC's discover their model is unsustainable and the "Legacy carriers" become more cost conscious. .. And what is Qantas doing? Fighting battles with unions!!! This i so 1970's!!!! Talk about fighting with the tactics of the last war!

If the Qantas Board and senior management are not removed it is going to go under. The APA bid was a disaster on too many levels to even begin to discuss, then their is the complete lack of trust between management and workforce, epitomised by this pig headed group think attitude about "Legacy airlines".

FFS, get the institutional shareholders to talk to the behavioural guys at Melb and Syd business schools if you don't believe me - talk to Phil Boas about "meta messages"* He would have afield day with Jackson, Clifford, Dixon and Joyces pronouncements.

* Meta message = the message you are sending when you don't think you are sending a message.

assasin8

10th Jun 2011, 08:07

Yes FGD, because if we reduce the salaries of our pilots and engineers, the company will turn around!:rolleyes:

That explains why, when the pilots' union approached the company and asked what they needed from us financially, they were unable to respond!:ugh:

That's why the executives keep awarding themselves payrises, without even blinking an eye!:{

Yes, of course you're right... Actually, why don't I work for gratis... Can't be any cheaper than that... Oh hang on, I could then come in on my days off and sweep the hangar floor and wash aircraft!:ok:

"Oh happy days..."

an3_bolt

10th Jun 2011, 10:02

Yes, of course you're right... Actually, why don't I work for gratis... Can't be any cheaper than that... Oh hang on, I could then come in on my days off and sweep the hangar floor and wash aircraft!

.....did you say pay for your endorsement
......?:{

jaded boiler

10th Jun 2011, 10:41

So if less than 4% of an aircraft's operating costs (pilot wages) cannot be reduced there is no hope for future profitability eh fgd?? Pathetic. You will need to do a little better with your next bleat if you hope to win the troll of the month award son.

stewser89

10th Jun 2011, 12:54

Jaded

I've heard that quote before. Mind sharing your source for 4% figure?

Im guessing that pilot wages against expenditure?

HF3000

10th Jun 2011, 13:39

Pilot salaries cost the airline something like a dollar per ticket. You could halve pilot salaries and it would make little bottom-line difference to the mess that mismanagement have put this airline in. In fact it would probably increase costs as half the pilots would leave the airline. QF spends almost as much on I.T. as pilots - and crap I.T. it is too - along with management, QF I.T. is the joke of the industry.

Its pilots are probably one of the best marketing tools the company has (along with its engineers). So the solution to the problem is to get rid of its pilots and its engineers? Joyce and Clifford probably think so, which is why they must go.

Management screwups cost this company more annually than the salaries of the pilots and engineers... Freight cartel fines, APA buyout costs, wrong aircraft, wrongly configured aircraft, bad choices of IFE, cost cutting on product such as catering, pissing customers off with JQ on routes they want to fly full-service, failure to chose the best joint ventures (alliance airlines) seriously destroying the network options, failure to invest in appropriate network destinations, failure to keep staff onside, failure to negotiate EBAs in good faith resulting in huge PIA costs, failure to maintain the image of a premium product, failure to maintain the icon status of the airline, failure to implement a good middle-management structure to create managers who proactively manage upwards with improvements to processes and products instead of just focusing on covering their own arses and KPIs... I'll stop now but could go on for pages.

gobbledock

10th Jun 2011, 13:45

Management screwups cost this company more annually than the salaries of the pilots and engineers... Freight cartel fines, APA buyout costs, wrong aircraft, wrongly configured aircraft, bad choices of IFE, cost cutting on product such as catering, pissing customers off with JQ on routes they want to fly full-service, failure to chose the best joint ventures (alliance airlines) seriously destroying the network options, failure to invest in appropriate network destinations, failure to keep staff onside, failure to negotiate EBAs in good faith resulting in huge PIA costs, failure to maintain the image of a premium product, failure to maintain the icon status of the airline, failure to implement a good middle-management structure to create managers who proactively manage upwards with improvements to processes and products instead of just focusing on covering their own arses and KPIs... I'll stop now but could go on for pages.

Superb !! Don't stop now, and yes, please do go on for pages....The above mentioned post pretty much sums up a lot of QF's problems. Sadly management (I know you are reading) are too arrogant and egotistical to realise the root of the problem - You managers have rooted the airline, face the facts and wake up - you have categorically and unequivocally fukced the airline. Morons !

TIMA9X

10th Jun 2011, 14:17

The bonus driven culture of the place has resulted in managers adopting very short time horizons and optimising management decisions with respect to their own prosperity, not the company's.
Yeah... this week from out of the blue comes the MAS one world thing.
Qantas, Malaysia Airlines to build ties, says Alan Joyce | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-malaysia-airlines-to-build-ties-says-alan-joyce/story-e6frg95x-1226070096848)
QANTAS will sponsor Malaysia Airlines's entry into the oneworld alliance and aims to forge closer links with the Kuala Lumpur-based airline as another way of boosting its market share in Asia. Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce said in Singapore today that the airline had been talking to MAS for some time and would work closely with both the airline and oneworld's management team to make the changes necessary for MAS to join the alliance. The process is expected to take 18 months.
Bla bla bla.....

We only have to go back a year or so to find this little chestnut,
http://images.smh.com.au/2010/02/11/1113630/shakes-200x0.jpg Air partners in flight of the discords

Scott Rochfort

February 12, 2010

Read more: Jetstar and AirAsia's historic partnership (http://www.smh.com.au/business/air-partners-in-flight-of-the-discords-20100211-nv5v.html#ixzz1OsiekUnZ)
One month on, AirAsia has now announced plans to undermine Jetstar's operations in Vietnam - Jetstar Pacific - by establishing a rival operation in the country with the start-up airline VietJet.
''The joint venture is a well-balanced combination of the management system, technical expertise, long-term experience in the airline industry, crew and international brand of AirAsia, and the financial strength, as well as Vietnamese market insights of VietJet Air,'' said the new Vietnamese rival to Jetstar Pacific.
It appears the Singapore Airlines-backed Tiger Airways is now become less concerned about the marriage of its two main rivals.
''We think this is hilarious,'' the chief executive of Tiger, Tony Davis, said yesterday.
my bold

The two airline strategy is simply too complicated, two balls v one batsman, that's not cricket. :ooh: