Dick Smith "QF move to Asia".

[Handbrake]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSad3BAfvmW62rFBYeYsDFYvHZZgqptrxKf_kHStPH rUdaaOHy97Q&t=1

Sorry, but is this the same Dick Smith that told the Australian today that it is much cheaper for him to have his aircraft serviced OS???? That QF needs to go off-shore to stay afloat????? :=

AUSTRALIAN MADE and AUSTRALIAN OWNED
Dick Smith Foods are made in Australia by Australian owned companies. We believe this is important because it provides employment for Australians and all the profits remain here, helping the future of our country.

Dick Smith Foods supports products which are produced by Australian owned businesses, which are Australian grown and made, and those Australian owned companies which operate in a highly ethical manner.
ith that says


But hang-on-a-tick Dick, you've just said the following today in the Australian...

Move to Asia or go broke, Dick Smith tells Qantas

Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
From: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)
July 13, 2011 12:00AM

ENTREPRENEUR and former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith has angered unions by predicting that Qantas International will go broke unless the flying kangaroo moves many of its operations to Asia.
Mr Smith warned yesterday that high wages and government policies that opened up local aviation routes to too much competition had put Qantas's mainline international operations in danger. He said the flying kangaroo was in a similar position to manufacturers forced to move offshore because of an inability to compete with lower-cost competitors.
He said servicing on his aircraft in Singapore and Dubai was 50 per cent cheaper than in Australia, and many airlines were operating at much lower costs than Qantas. While he supported the Australian airline, many of his business colleagues were not willing to pay extra to fly on Qantas and opted for cheaper tickets on rival carriers.
"I feel sorry for (Qantas chief executive) Alan Joyce, I feel sorry for the pilots and I totally blame the government," he said.
"The politicians have decided that we should have this open skies (regime) where you have to compete with completely different wage scales and salary scales.
"If they (Qantas) don't move virtually everything up into Asia call centres, maintenance, any overhead they can they will go broke."
Mr Joyce also warned that the future of international mainline services was not guaranteed when he set up a taskforce to develop a strategy to turn around the loss-making operations.
Analysts expect recommendations to be announced next month will include cutting marginal international routes, forging closer relations with partner airlines and setting up an Asian-based full service carrier to complement the Australian operations.
Mr Smith's comments angered pilot and engineers unions worried about job security and poised to take industrial action.
"Anyone can get a cheap roadworthy done on a car -- unfortunately, in our game, when something is missed, it tends to resurface at 30,000ft," Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association federal secretary Steve Purvinas said.
Australian and International Pilots Association vice-president Richard Woodward said Mr Smith had never worked as a professional pilot or in an airline. He said taking work out of the country would do great damage to the industry because of the loss of jobs and skills.
"Sure, things are tough out there, but there are other international carriers making significant amounts of money right now in these difficult times," he said

Sorry Dick, did you just tell us that it is cheaper for you to have your aircraft serviced oversees? But, I thought you said in your mission statement that you want to keep jobs in Australia to "help the future of our country".
You can't have it both ways Dick:=

[1a sound asleep]

The politicians have decided that we should have this open skies (regime) where you have to compete with completely different wage scales and salary scales.


"Sure, things are tough out there, but there are other international carriers making significant amounts of money right now in these difficult times," he said

Here in lies the problem. QF is getting decimated by the likes of , and especially EK. If EK wasn't operating into Australia I reckon it would be another ball game.

[Xcel]

Heard utterings of the Dick (kranium) rant on the radio...

Sorry old mate, but you just lost all credibility (what was left) on that one. :=

[Dick Smith]

Xcel, you state,

Sorry old mate, but you just lost all credibility (what was left) on that one

Xcel, do you believe I lose credibility by telling the truth?

The number of flights now being allowed into Australia from the Middle East by our Government makes it completely obvious to me and to anyone with any business sense that the Government has really stuffed-up in this situation.

Are you aware that the Chinese communist government restricts the number of overseas airlines operating into Hong Kong in order to protect Cathay?

Are you aware that the Canadian government restricts the number of foreign aircraft flying into Canada to protect their own airline?

What I am saying is a fact of life and it is really important that it is said. There is absolutely no advantage for me to state these important facts.

I understand that with a typical airline about 30% of the costs are related to labour. How, then, could Qantas possibly compete with airlines from the Middle East where they use virtual slave-labour from the Philippines and India to work on their aircraft?

Below is an answer I have given to a private message received on PPRuNe:

I was reasonably accurately reported and I would be delighted if you start a thread on PPRuNe about this. The only inaccuracy [in the article in The Australian ] that I could see is where the article said,

“Mr Smith warned yesterday that high wages and government policies that opened up local aviation routes to too much competition had put Qantas's mainline international operations in danger”

In fact, I’m not talking about opening up local aviation routes. What I was referring to is the fact that Qantas has to compete on international routes with carriers that pay far less in wages and salaries.

...as per the attached email to Richard Woodward, I am actually on your side. I am simply trying to explain a fact, and that is that when the Whitlam Government decided to open up our Australian television manufacturing industry to competition from Asia, it was obvious that we would not have an industry. This is exactly what eventuated. All the engineers and workers in the factories ended up getting the sack.

The Federal Government decided a number of decades ago that our international aviation should be opened up to the marketplace without any restrictions in relation to the completely different standards of living and salaries paid. Surely the writing was on the wall then!

Would you really prefer that I don’t state the truth and just watch while Qantas goes broke? Surely not! I am the person who has consistently said that I am happy to pay more to fly with Qantas because I consider it safer – but I am a lone voice. In fact, I was attacked mercilessly by the industry, including pilots, when as Chairman of CASA I told people not to always fly with the cheapest airline.

You mentioned Dick Smith Foods – it’s a great example of what will happen to Qantas. Dick Smith Foods used to turn over $80 million per year – that was when I was getting lots of free publicity for supporting Australian farmers. Since then, the turnover has dropped to about $8 million and it’s on-track to go broke because just about every Australian simply supports the product which is advertised most – especially if it is cheaper. Our beautiful Australian peanut butter made with Australian peanuts used to have about 15% of the market. Now it has dropped to about 6% while Kraft has 60% and we are about to be dumped by the supermarkets even though it’s 20% cheaper than the Kraft peanut butter which contains inferior Argentine peanuts. Why does everyone return to buying Kraft? Because it is advertised most and Kraft have extra margins to spend even more on marketing.

I always fly internationally with Qantas even though it costs me an absolute fortune. However, I would be remiss in not telling the truth – people stop me in the streets and say, “Dick, thanks for saying it how it is”. Well, I see present Government policies completely destroying our iconic Qantas international airline just as the Government destroyed our wonderful electronics manufacturing industry.

If this is not said, then it will happen. You should be supporting what I am saying and getting a change in Government policy, not criticising me.
Also, below is a copy of an email I have sent to Richard Woodward, VP of the Australian and International Pilots Association:

Dear Richard

I refer to the article in The Australian today, “[I]Move to Asia or Go Broke, Dick Smith Tells Qantas”.

Richard, I am actually on the side of our Australian pilots and our national carrier, Qantas. I am simply pointing out that once the Government made the decision that our Australian-owned international airlines would have to compete on an unlevel playing field with airlines that were based in places like China and India, that there is simply no way of them remaining in business unless costs are reduced to a similar level.

Of course, it would be different if Australians were prepared to pay more to fly with Australian-owned and based airlines paying Australian salaries, however my experience is that most Australians are not.

You may not know, but I always fly with Qantas internationally whenever I can, even though some of Qantas’ airfares are quite high compared with their competitors.

When the Whitlam Government decided to reduce all duties on electronic consumer equipment, they knew at the time that it would mean we would no longer have an electronics manufacturing industry in this country. Fantastic Australian companies that were icons - as Qantas is - such as AWA and ASTOR, basically had to close down. It was an absolute disaster. As you know, we do not make any television sets, DVD players or amplifiers in Australia because local companies simply can't compete.

By the look of it, when it comes to the “open skies” policy, the Government hasn't looked at – or admitted – that in effect it means that we won’t have our own airline industry that flies internationally in competition with carriers with completely different salary structures.

It is all incredibly sad and a complete catastrophe for Australia, especially if we ever have another war and we don’t have the expertise that a national carrier would provide.

You may not remember, but when I was Chairman of CASA we produced a safety brochure and I personally wrote the wording which, in effect, cautioned fare-paying passengers against opting for the cheapest ticket prices as those companies would normally spend the bare minimum on safety as required by the Regulator, whereas companies with higher ticket prices often spent more than the minimum on safety.

It’s interesting – I was universally attacked for this and within weeks of me resigning as Chairman all copies of the document were destroyed by CASA.

If you would like to look at the document I refer to, it is on my Dick Smith Flyer website –see link HERE. Particularly look at paragraph #2 and, more importantly, paragraph marked #5 re. international travel.

Yours faithfully
Dick Smith

I believe these emails (above) are self explanatory.

My suggestion is you look at the link (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_43.php)to the safety brochure I was involved in, especially the paragraph on international operations.

At least I am prepared to stand up for Australians, Australian businesses and Australian pilots and engineers. What a pity so few do, and what a pity I am attacked for telling the truth.

[ernestkgann]

1a sound asleep, you're right about EK but Dixon never believed the challenge and now QF is so far behind their competitors that only legislative change wrt open skies can help them.
I reckon EK pilots are 50pc more productive than QF at similar all up costs. QF's overall labour costs are huge compared to EK's given their ability to pay workers from the sub continent much less. This comes at personal cost to EK pilots as fatigue and has a safety impact that is yet to be discovered by EK in my opinion.

[Jay Arr]

I'm hearing you, Dick. I'm listening. So what you do think needs to be done, what do we NEED to do?

[ernestkgann]

Incidentally QF don't have a 'right' to Australian international flying, Kingsford Smith's company' ANA started while they were a Queensland domestic carrier, and in this regard I'd see no benefit in protecting them individually. I see benefit in protecting Australian airlines which compete globally but cannot do so on an even playing field because of varying compliance by middle east airlines with labour laws and rights and compliance by local regulators. Have a look at EK's, Etihad and Qatar's FTLs and FRMS setup and you'll get the picture.
I have long believed Mr Smith was out of his depth as boss of the Australian regulator and that he pushed a private flying agenda based on a narrow cross section of experience but he has been misinterpreted here. If Australian international flying is not protected then it cannot compete.

[Jack Ranga]

He said servicing on his aircraft in Singapore and Dubai was 50 per cent cheaper than in Australia

Out of interest Dick, have you had to have any of that foreign maintenance rectified in Australia?

Why is it that Australians whinge about the cost of things when it all comes back to globalisation. The reason your maintenance is 'expensive' in Australia is because your LAME is getting paid a fair quid for his/her labour. The foreign labour is getting paid farkall and is probably not qualified in the work they are doing and having it overseen by an engineer. It is further exacerbated by the 'nanny state' regulatory regime we 'enjoy' in Australia.

Globalisation = a scam. A scam in which wealth is further re-distributed from the middle class to our 'friends' in management as bonuses.

[Metro man]

What's the solution then ? Have the Australian Government nationalise Qantas, then the employees can have the job security, terms, conditions and working practices they want.

Stick the bill for all this to the tax payer as Qantas becomes part of the public service.

['holic]

Dick,

I agree with a lot of your comments, particularly with how government policy has helped create the situation we are in.

However, I'm not convinced that foreign carriers' lower cost base has as great an impact as you believe. Qantas has always had a higher cost base than our competitors, and yet has up until recently managed to make healthy profits. Why do you think this is so? Apart from having a higher cost base, how much have factors like poor fleet choice, Jetstar cannibalising Mainline, poor route structure, lack of investment in product etc etc affected the bottom line?

I notice on your website you promote your products as made by companies which act in a "highly ethical manner". The problem I have with your comments in the Australian article is that they give credibility to the unethical manner in which Qantas is acting. If you genuinely want to try and resolve this situation in the best interests of Australia and Australian employees you should at least be trying to ascertain :

1. If the accounts that Qantas presents to the media are an accurate and fair representation of the state of the company, particularly how costs are apportioned between parts of the group.

2. What alternative solutions may exist to offshoring the company, preferable by consulting in good faith with current employees.

Shouldn't we at least try to explore these things before throwing our hands in the air and moving Qantas to Asia?

[Al E. Vator]

Sorry but there are major flaws in Mr Smith's logic here:

I worked as an airline pilot for a major carrier in Asia and was paid way more than my QF colleagues. That carrier was and remains massively profitable, in spite of the 'threat' from dodgy low-cost operators.

Qantas can pay Australian-trained pilots well (using like carriers as a datum) and still reap in millions in profits.

The likes of Air France/KLM and Lufthansa are 'burdened' by far stricter social, pension and other fiscal requirements and obligations to their very well paid pilots than QF and yet still manage to turn good profits and expand - also in the face of competition from the likes of Emirates.

We are witnessing the rapid deconstruction of what was once a national icon. That this deconstruction is totally unneccessary is a disgrace. This relentless push to offshore everything is just a smokescreen for CEO's and Directors to qualify for fatter bonuses and fattened CV's for their move to the next corporate stop. I dont feel at all sorry for Mr Joyce - this current PR hype that "Qantas's mainline international operations in danger" is a transparent comment, trotted-out regularly at EBA time to scare gullible staff-members.

Im sorry Mr Smith but you state that: "At least I am prepared to stand up for Australians, Australian businesses and Australian pilots and engineers". Nice words but sure as hell was not reality in my case. I once worked for Compass Airlines and you didn't do much good for that airline or it's employees. Indeed the actions at CASA then were the reason I ended up at the well-paying foreign airline! Not what you should ever regard as your proudest moment (you will know the tawdry politicians and businesspeople involved behind the real reason Compass was shut down) and completely at odds with your words here today.

People don't fly Qantas because it's cheap they fly it because its safe.

I like the idea of Smiths Peanut Butter and will do anything to avoid the global multi-nationals. However that Peanut Butter is probably not sufficiently different to attract sufficient customers. Qantas is different. It is globally acknowledged as safe and professional. Destroying precious brand-differentiation by foolish offshoring is a complete act of stupidity.

Keep it truly Australian and it can and will prosper. Send it all offshore and it will become just another crappy means of transport.

Sure the Company Directors will get fatter pay checks and share parcels but Australia will lose yet another brand and product. Of all people, the futility such short-term thinking should not be lost on Dick Smith.

[Jet-A-One]

Like it or not, the "open skies" are here to stay. The ATO's aircraft depreciation policies may be an area of comprimised competitiveness though.

All the engineers I know working over in the sand pit are getting paid quite well and the airlines they work for seem to be growing OK too.

Offshoring is just another way to help the pr1cks running QF line their pockets further.

The success of QF in the future will be what built it. Aussie pilots, Aussie engineers and Aussie cabin crew etc. And an Aussie CEO that has the intestinal fortitude to make the right decisions to get us back to what we once were: A great AUSTRALIAN airline with engaged employees and a focus on safety and service. That's our niche.

[balance]

So Dick, based on your logic, lets just pack EVERYTHING up and move it to Asia, then. The whole fricking lot. Not just Qantas - but all those companies (and that is pretty much all of them) who would like to increase their bottom line in the short term without really thinking of the consequences to their country.

Including the products YOU make, because I'm sure that some chinese guys in a sweat shop could produce it cheaper. And thats better for you and the bogan consumers right?

We will move anything that produces, provides, services etc overseas, simply because it is the only way to make them profitable, because the moronic Australian government is too stupid to even attempt to maintain our way of life.

So, now what happens to these businesses, that have been built up over hunderds of years, find that Australians now can't access any of their products or services, because they are ALL OUT OF WORK, and therefore have NO MONEY?

Dick, this isn't brain surgery. In order to have an Australian economy, you must have JOBS. If we decide to outsource ALL OUR JOBS overseas, then we have very little left. Comprehend?

Sorry mate - but on this occasion, you are VERY, VERY WRONG! We need to think of our country, and long term, not just until the next shareholders meeting! This country is RAPIDLY going down the gurgler.

I'm ashamed that you, as a patriotic Aussie, would sell your countrymen out so easily. You should be hanging your head in shame, Dick.

[big buddah]

I'm not to intelligent but Dick if all Australia companies took that attitude it would start a cycle.

1 Off shore everything to third world cheaper countries.
2 Those third world countries lack experience.
3 Employ expat experience to lift there game.
4 Countries wealth goes up so does cost of living.

5. Australians brains leave the country to pursue huge opportunities that are created overseas take there families etc
6. The high income earners who pay the tax are gone
7. Australia slowly becomes a dust bowl with no one left, except for the uneducated and unskilled?

8 No need for the boat people to come any more?


Why not just make a better product?
Works for Air New Zealand they have an open skies no protection. They realized they couldn't compete on price so created a better product.

[FlareArmed]

I watched the TV interview – Dick didn't say anything against Qantas staff: he pointed out a few facts of life brought about by Open Skies policy (Howard Government). In fact he said to keep all pilot operations in Australia would probably have very little effect on profits because of the small percentages [of overall cost] involved.

Dick's message: if Qantas competes head-to-head with Asian carriers, but with higher costs, it can't survive long-term. The tone was not anti-Qantas; it was a big-picture view of any business competing in a globalised market.

The question: is the QF Board using globalisation to ensure survival, or are they going way beyond what is necessary in a march towards obscene profit (at the expense of it's loyal staff and the suffering of customers).

[Dick Smith]

Flare. You are a breath of fresh air. That is exactly what I am getting at.
Others please take note.

[Dick Smith]

In the three 100-hourlies I have had done, one in Singapore and two in Dubai, in all cases they have either been Australian or British LAMEs in charge. However, the difference is that there appeared to be only one LAME supervising between five and ten Philippino or Indian workers. On these three occasions the maintenance was superb and I have spoken to lots of people who have had services in these locations and all report that the maintenance is as good as in Australia. Why wouldn’t it be if it is an Australian or British LAME signing off?


Wow! I have now been told on this site by an anonymous poster who is not even game to use his/her own name that I was “out of my depth” as the boss of the Australian regulator when the same poster makes no comment or criticism of the existing Chairman and his experience in aviation.

I am also now being blamed by another anonymous person that I “didn’t do much good" for Compass and was complicit in it being closed down.

The poster makes no comment about the incompetent management by a certain Mr Grey.

The problem I see at the present time is that most business colleagues I know consider that airlines like Emirates and Etihad are just as safe as Qantas and, in fact, claim to me that they have even newer aircraft and because of that they are safer.

Of course it’s never mentioned that their staff overhead costs – as mentioned before – of up to 30% of the operating costs of an airline are far, far less.

Yes, I agree that these airlines pay the pilots and a handful of licensed maintenance engineers really good money. The problem is that just about everyone else is on wages and salaries that would not be legal in Australia.

Jay Arr has said, Dick. I'm listening. So what you do think needs to be done, what do we NEED to do?

The answer is complicated. For a start, if we want to keep a majority of Australians employed by Qantas we will have to somehow convince people to pay more for their airfares with Qantas. I think this could be possible, but very difficult.

Alternatively, Qantas will have to get all its workers working as efficiently as possible using world’s best practice and also move some of their overheads to countries where costs are lower so that Qantas can compete with airlines which most Australians consider to be just as safe.

If neither of these things eventuates, I believe Qantas will follow the famous electronics manufacturer, AWA – i.e. the Qantas brand will completely disappear. This would be a catastrophe and a disaster for Australia in my view.

Not many people, including me, thought that Ansett could close so spectacularly and so quickly. I don’t want that to happen to Qantas. That is why I am speaking up now and stating some of the facts of the situation.

[lineupandwait]

Qantas "the nothing to do with safety or Australia airline"

I never flew them for the service they provided (or lack of it).

[ernestkgann]

At the risk of thread drift Mr Smith, I don't know much about the current chairman as he appears not to be in the media pursuing a radical new airspace agenda.
I, like many others, are anonymous because we work in the industry and gain income from it. I know a little of you through the Air Force navigator who helped plan your trip round the world in the 206.
Otherwise it doesn't matter to me commercially if QF stays or goes except they represent legacy investment in aviation training and standards that the low cost models can't afford to pursue and with QFs demise we may say good bye to those standards.

[600ft-lb]

Let's offshore everything to Asia, just like America did in the 90s and 00's.

Now look at America, record profits for businesses, destruction of the middle class and the highest unemployment since the depression.

That's the future for this country if anything resembling a skilled job is offshored to the lowest bidder, the company's do great, record profits for all, bonuses for expert management, the country as a whole suffers when its citizens are left without employment.

Then you've got that people like Rhinehart, who did nothing but was born into riches, she wants to create a SEZ to import workers from india and the phillipines to bypass safeguards in our IR legislation because being the richest in the country JUST ISN'T ENOUGH. That's how smart the smartest people in the country are.

Should we just give up and move to a fairy godmother clean energy job like Gillard promised will happen as we 'transform' our economy. Or do we just turn into unskilled drones clocked by the minute in some mine in QLD or WA making sure we dig the exact amount to cubic meters per hour otherwise profits will be hit and ship it off overseas because we're too stupid in this country to do anything else ?

Think bigger, Dick, Qantas made over a billion but a few years ago, the world hasn't changed that much, my pay packet surely hasn't, but the ones in China have been sky rocketing, reckon it's going to be slave labour forever ?

Big corporation social responsibility includes not disrespecting the country they are based in, founded in, majority customers from etc. I know that doesn't tie up with MBA 'smartest people in the room outsource at all costs I've got KPI's to reach and bonuses that have already been spent on a new Porsche 911'. If it's too expensive and the economy of scale doesn't exist, WHY doesn't it exist ? WHY isn't there a main facility in this country in 1 location thats a hub for maintenance ?

You know whats really funny, Dick, in all my time in the industry being a burden on the likes of yourself, all the the amazing initiatives, the spiv's that come to the company to run courses for the staff, taking days, weeks, months of manpower off the tools, the lean sigmas, everything, I'm still doing my job exactly the same as before. It still takes as long as it takes to change an engine.

The "Economies of Scale" argument is a joke. If the facility has enough aircraft to see the staff working on back to back aircraft, like Qantas does, and the workers do, the economy of scale argument needs to exist because the PRODUCTIVE workers need to support the LAYERS and LAYERS of management and their hangers-on's, the 'workplace initiatives' the 'forums' all staff must attend, AWAY FROM THE JOB.

It also needs to exist so the staff can navigate through the minefield of policies and procedures, 1000's of pages worth, as breaching them can lead to dismissal. And the JUST culture is punitive if you know the P&P exists and didn't follow it to the letter. All created by some genius in an ivory tower.

You think Qantas would be so expensive if I didn't need to sit down for 2 hours trying to work out an expense claim, filling it out, printing off authority notes, photocopying receipts, looking up codes, trying to find my old boarding passes even though THE COMPUTER SYSTEM SAID I TRAVELLED, when the company agreed in writing and agreement to pay it anyway. And will refuse to pay me if the expense claim isn't completed within a specified time frame ? Expenses I had to pay with my own personal credit card on company service for ? Some wasted time right there.

Yet will happily dock a weeks worth of pay without explanation and be lucky if I see that money within the next month when they are found to be in the wrong - and they always are, more wasted time.

Have 500 different applications that all have different passwords and you need to call mumbai to get a reset which doesn't work 1/2 the time and are fun to try and understand. Prove to the Quality guy/CASA that we're authorized to certify a password, book out spare parts another password, look up email another password, log into computer another password, lookup online techlogs another password, book duty travel another password, more wasted time.

Try to find some obscure part in the manuals that 'have been digitized' but were NEVER catagorized, leaving us to trawl through literally thousands of PDF's with a search function that doesn't work

How about burdening the crew leadership with mountains of clerical paperwork instead of leaving him able to perform his duties as a lead hand ? Hand writing timesheets even though the work plan is available ? Performing useless duties that contribute nothing ? more wasted time

A few examples of what we as a whole employee group have to go through on a daily basis, more wasted time.

You reckon its because we're too inefficient and expensive. There's a reason why they say that - and its got nothing to do with actual on the job working.

Of course we just don't compare with the likes of SASCO/SIAEC/HAECO when it comes to not burdening your workers with idiotic policies and procedures. But we more then compare when it comes to actually working on the aircraft. If we're too expensive, don't blame the guy on the floor, he's there day in day out, 4am starts, nightshifts, public holidays, xmas, easter, pissing rain, 50+celcius along with working in confined spaces ie fueltanks, dangerous chemicals, hydraulic fluid that gets everywhere and BURNS. It's funny in a sad way that the aircraft maint engineer profession has been denigrated to 'overpaid mechanics' by the breed of management that has come through int he last 10 years. I'd LOVE to see any of them jump in the fuel tank with me. I'd LOVE it. There is something else at fault here and its not the worker.

[porch monkey]

Dick, I have one question for you. Many people here, (and myself), suspect/know of some of the gifting/cross subsidisation of the Jetstar brand at the cost of QF domestic/international. This management lie through their teeth, and get away with it at the moment because noone asks the important questions regarding the financials. The figures they produce are rubbery at best and downright works of fiction at worst. However, noone other than the management have the real ones. How exactly does that sit with you? Do you actually believe the story that this inept management continues to trot out? Yes, the company must be competitive. It never will be as long as the whole financial picture remains hidden.

[BP2197]

I'm pleased that someone with extensive experience like Mr Smith has finally pointed out where the responsibility of the problem truly lies.

The "Open Skies" policy is a strategic aspect of the governments work and certainly an external factor which is detrimental to local operators. To be fair though, the government must balance a bigger picture which is the benefit that other operators bring to the price of an airfare for the consumer and the increased number of travelers to Australia. This is a decision the federal government make and if you disagree, you should certainly contact your local member.

International trade theory clearly highlights the advantages of global trade however there will always be losers and in this case it will be local carriers. Unless the government view a national airline of strategic importance, the view of Mr Smith would appear to be valid.

[maggotdriver]

I agree with what you have written but international trade theory is just that. Theory! What do you do when several sovereign states deliberately set up an arbitrage practice to undermine real competition? REALITY:{

[JohnMcGhie]

Hi Dick/All:

I can't resist this... As one of my (many!) former 'careers', I worked in the AWA Factory, making TVs. I was there just at the introduction of colour TVs. Our flagship product then was the Philips K-9 TV, which many in the electronics industry will remember for its ground-breaking switched-mode power supply, and its true PAL delay-line decoder that enabled the reproduction of true colours.

We had a better product, it sold in hundreds of thousands for the same price as others, and I will bet you that some are still running!

My point is that Dick is right: QANTAS is going under because it's not competitive. But I disagree with him that protectionism is the answer: it has never worked anywhere else it has been tried...

Carry out a little test: Book yourself three international legs, one on QANTAS, one on VA, one on Emirates. Book down the back in Cattle Class where the majority of us do the majority of our flying. See your product the way most Australians see it. What will you get?

QANTAS: Narrow, cramped, uncomfortable seats. Old, noisy, dirty aircraft. Nasty, out-of-focus IFE that probably doesn't work, with no choice of what you watch. Haphazard cabin service from staff that look and act like they don't want to be there.

VA: More comfortable seats: still squashy, but bearable for 15 hours! Superb IFE, with seat-back screens. Modern, clean aircraft (the 777 is not particularly quiet, but it will do). OK, the staff may look a little strung out, but they are trying: really trying to please.

Emirates: Just try one leg on Emirates and you will see where the goal-posts are now. The A380 is so quiet I had to take my headphones off to be sure they had started the engines. Meals are delicious. Staff are unhurried and attentive. Aircraft spotless. My main problem with the IFE was that we landed before I got all my selections watched! And the voice from the flight-deck had an Australian accent.

If VA can do it, QANTAS could too. If they had put even a little of their effort into looking after their customers in ways that count.

I am sorry guys, but trying to make Economy Class so excruciatingly uncomfortable that we would be forced to buy Business Class or not fly, is not a marketing strategy I would have chosen. It is having the predictable effect: we're NOT flying QANTAS. What did you expect?

Cheers

[skybed]

QANTAS: Narrow, cramped, uncomfortable seats. Old, noisy, dirty aircraft.
Quote:
Nasty, out-of-focus IFE that probably doesn't work, with no choice of what you watch. Haphazard cabin service from staff that look and act like they don't want to be there.


Emirates: Just try one leg on Emirates and you will see where the goal-posts are now. The A380 is so quiet I had to take my headphones off to be sure they had started the engines. Meals are delicious. Staff are unhurried and attentive. Aircraft spotless. My main problem with the IFE was that we landed before I got all my selections watched! And the voice from the flight-deck had an Australian accent.

I get it you don't like the rat. but compare an QF 747 with a new EKA380 is not fair. Get on a QF A380 and then compare! Sure QF lages in refitting their 747's but try the A380. As for EK have you ever flown from Oz to DBK then on to somewhere in Europa. most likely you have an aircraft change in Dubai and all the glorious bits are gone.
As for the 777 on VA. yes it is a good aircraft and if only the powers in QF would have got 20 of them............................the rest is history
I do agree with Dicks comments:ok:
keep the comparison fair!

[Xcel]

"5-6 phillipinos and Indians under an Aussie or Brit LAME"

oh and how will you get a LAME to provide supervision if we already outsourced the jobs over seas, have no lames in Australia cause the pay is poor, and know you'll need to move if you want to even obtain a job...

Let's look at it this way Dick - if you thought your peanut butter could have a higher profit margin if it was made in India. Would you then setup factories in India ship it to Australia and sell it in a mix with your genuine Aussie peanut butter and claim they're all Aussie owned Aussie made and highest quality peanuts because it's part of the group? It's ok just put an asterix on the Aussie made logo with a notation *may be produced in india*

I'm not about to tell you how to run your business dick, your clearly a smarter man than I. But if your product is cheaper then surely you could raise the price to increase your marketing budget on Aussie made Aussie owned or the superior quality and taste it has. I for one am a consumer of your products for that reason.

Qantas is completely different - it is not the fualt of government (although they could assist in helping our businesses prosper)...

Qantas management is clearly shortsighted, inept and out of their depth and clearly unable to offer a quality product and manage all of it's affairs.

On the government side perhaps a competetive tax rate would help yours and qantas' cause, and be worth advocating for all business in Australia. But instead we continue to tax high requiring high salaries to cover it... we are also about to add another tax to the detrimate of business. Then whinge when we can't afford to pay our employees anymore... Yeap blame the Asians...

[teresa green]

I totally disagree. Qantas is not going under because it is not competitive, it is going under because it is poorly led. Clifford is the main problem and Joyce is not far behind. Air NewZealand is a perfect example of a well run airline, and the reason is it has a excellent CEO, who recognises that the staff are everything. They don't have the all the latest equipment, but they present clean, well maintained aircraft, happy staff, and value for money. A trip with them is pleasant, the average punter is happy with that. Not all airlines can present with the latest out of the Boeing/Airbus hangers, and they mean not a dam if there is no service to go with it. All airlines have their faults, and having just flown CX, always a nice airline to fly, I might just mention that their economy class seats are equivalent to a rock. Nine hours to HKG on a rock is no fun, the cabin manager assured me that they were designed by a chiropractor, well all I can think is they are drumming up business, at least QF seats are comfortable. Get rid of Clifford and Joyce, get yourselves a decent CEO in the mould of Menidue, Ward or Yates, all good company men who appreciated their staff, and the staff responded accordingly, and QF will start humming along again. It does not need to go off shore, it belongs here. Surely to God we can run it from here, if we cannot then it is us that has failed. Surely this great old airline deserves better. As for Smith, I put him the same basket as Oakeshott, the conversation is alarmingly the same.:ugh::ugh:

[Roger Greendeck]

600ft-lb, well said Sir!

[balance]

Dick,

OK, I accept that you meant Qantas' employees no harm, and that you lay the blame on the Government and the non-protectionist policies.

Problem is (and c173 beat me to it - well said mate!), your headline reads:

Move to Asia or go broke, Dick Smith tells Qantas

By doing so you have kicked a huge goal for what Teresa rightly describes as a poor management team.

You have given them momentum they need to outsource!

Perhaps your headline should have read - "Smith Blames Open Skies Policy for Qantas Failure" or "Reform of Australias Airways Needed for Qantas Future".

Maybe you should think a little more before flapping your gums!

Let me tell you, Dick, Qantas doesnt just want to send employment to Asia because they are cheaper. They want to do it because overseas work forces are EASIER! They have no OH&S! They have no superannuation! They have no annoying unions! They will shut up and do what they are told! They are compliant!

It isnt just costs! It is the whole package.

Qantas management are doing this not because Qantas isn't profitable as it is, even despite their hopeless ineptitude! They are doing it because they can!

And you just assisted them with that joke of a headline!

[Poto]

QF management may listen to Dick Smith's headline, they won't listen to the rest anyway!

They will HAVE to listen when the Ginger Beers and the Drivers start some proper action.

They lost an estimated $150M in '08 during the last Engineering dispute and then gave the Ginger Beers everything they originally asked for. I wonder how much they wanna lose this time.:ugh:

It's not going to be easy but these are skilled employees with Brains who will not lay down and be trodden on by Management anymore!:ok:

[JohnMcGhie]

I get it you don't like the rat.

More correctly, I do not like what I get for my money on the Rat these days.

I always used to book Ansett, because it started in a town where I used to live. Then I always used to book QANTAS, because it was Australian.

Same way I drive a Ford because it's the only thing designed and made in Australia (and it's not as awful as the Holden fans would have you believe...)

Other airlines planes are just as old. But nowhere near as dirty and uncomfortable!

Or expensive: SYD <--> SIN on a 388 in August:
Singapore Airlines: AU$843.52
QANTAS: AU$937.84
It's not competitive not because it can't, but because it won't. It's choosing not to.

[xjt]

"Dick is an expert"......mmmmmm.....

well if his opinions are as good as his airspace design we are in a whole lot of trouble.....I laugh each time australians say we have experts here....after operating overseas for a decade i can clearly say we have the worlds worst systems and infrastructure in place.........thats right worlds second best....to the rest of the world =....what a disgrace

[Normasars]

600 ft/lbs

:ok:

[packrat]

It is now safe to assume that Littleus Dickus is now on the Qantas Payroll as a consulting expert.
Little Man~Big Mouth

[mohikan]

Dicks involvement with the rat goes back to the days where he flew his helo around the world remember.

He is a chairmans club lounge member.

God, what a toxic, corrupt and utterly disgraceful mess Australian aviation has become. I am glad I am going to be out of it soon after Aug 24.

I was in GA when Dick dismantled Flight Service and all the other associated protections in the name of 'affordable safety"

I have been in various Airlines since, and had to listen to his misinformed dribble on this and other forums. As far as PPRUNE goes, too many of us too scared to properly take him on after that poor girl was sued for libel.

At least one good thing about being a foreign contractor is that I will be outside of a system that he has anything to do with.

As Field Marshall Erwin Rommel once said "there is nothing worse then a well meaning amateur with resources"

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

I think Dick has some valid points but also disagree with many of the comments. Just one thing I do note here. Dick didn't write the headline, that was done by a journo.

[Dashtrash]

From one of dicks earlier posts...the communist chinese government restrict access to hKG to protect CX....Who do they restrict. was trying to think of who I HAVN't seen there. We have Qantas/Air New Zealand/Virgin Atlantic/British Airways/Emirates/Qatar/Singapore/Thai/United/Air Canada/Lufthansa/Air France/South African/ Air India/Aeroflot/ANA/Japan Airlines/Finnair/Phillapines/Etihad/Korean Airlines/KLM/Air pacific/Jetstar Asia?hong Kong Airlines and Express + all the local carriers. yep the chinese really have the reins on tight there don't they. If you dont have "less" on you have.......
The QF pilots dont aim for the dirt so why is the management.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Yes, I agree that these airlines pay the pilots and a handful of licensed maintenance engineers really good money. The problem is that just about everyone else is on wages and salaries that would not be legal in Australia.They also pay a lot less for basics than we do in Australia. I doubt that the average Chinese aviation worker is dropping AUD$60 a shop at the local Coles/Woolies for basic in season vegies, 3 star mince and econo bacon or over twenty grand in tax. You can save a few bucks going to the markets and Crazy Clarks but the prices are still far and beyond even what the Poms pay for basics. Nor does a mortgage on a basic 1 bedroom renovator's delight unit set them back over $250 000. I travelled to India a few years ago and even the bar workers I spoke to had their own property, granted it was small and noisy but an apartment mortgage was affordable on a reasonable wage. Not so here.

If everything in every industry gets off shored a whole bunch of us will be unemployable. What do we do then? No jobs for garbos or checkout chicks anymore, they've been replaced by machines. Are us workers just unviable as a group? Should we march into the sea for the good of the country, or just sit around collecting the dole and voting Labor until the country goes broke, a la the UK? Every 'basic' job that is offshored is a basic job lost to an Australian, probably a dumb:mad: Australian but nonetheless a worker who supports him/herself and maybe a family. If it's not viable to employ Australians, then what is the viability of the country? Should we all move Back Home (because Home's doing so well at the moment, at least they've stopped throwing grenades this week :eek:)?

At the moment I'm on reasonably good money for what I consider is an important, albiet basic aviation job. Maybe someone above me will think otherwise, which is why I and many other aviation workers lie awake every now and then (usually after a few wines :() thinking, what's the future hold? Was this a good idea or should I have gone into logistics or the dreaded mines, where I can drink too much sitting alone in a desert wasteland and stuff up what family connections I have left? Will we all be sold out like spongecake to offshore companies or casual subcontractors because some beancounter says we're unviable?

With respect, this is academic to you. You don't work in aviation, you aren't threatened with job cuts or unviableness, you've made your millions (and I don't begrudge a cent of it, good for you). If you wonder why posters come across as angry and upset it's because a lot of people are scared. Scared that we'll go the way of the cartwheel makers and blacksmiths and be left scrounging for a job as a casual security guard saying 'hey, once I was something. I worked in aviation. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody [On the Waterfront]". You don't have that fear. You don't frantically study part-time around shift work to future-proof your career because you've already made it, you're already a contender.

By the way, many of us stay anonymous because our employers would be most displeased to see us commenting on here. You have the guts to post under your own name and full marks for that, but you also have the freedom. No-one's going to sack you for it. It doesn't cost you anything.

[blueloo]

Singapore Airlines: AU$843.52
QANTAS: AU$937.84

I'd pay the extra for the safety on the Rat.

Don't be thinking that SQ is particularly safe. And as for economy service..... well in all honesty the times i have been on them, they have a lot more cabin crew down the back, but the service and food was worse than QF. (And I rarely defend QF food or service!)

[Tangan]

This is the result of the politically supported idea of GLOBALISATION, big money pushing all workers to third world standards while they reap huge personal benefits. I do not have any empathy for QF but if our government does not protect Australian industries this will not stop until our lifestyle is reduced to that of those in Asia.

[The The]

Singapore Airlines: AU$843.52
QANTAS: AU$937.84

Or jump on over to Jetstar. A quick look at their website has fares ranging from about $900 to $1800 economy, bonza eh! :eek:

For that they'll even let me carry me woolies enviro bag onboard. Tossing the bag in the hold, starts at $25. Like to prepay for a great meal (some curry thing) and some FF points (I must have like 1000 of them points by now), $60.
How about a video, $10 (what will I watch, Karate Kid or Wog Boy 2? LOL!!!). Hmmm, maybe a beer would be nice, $6 for a VB, better still, $8 for a bundy and coke! Mmmate, I'm gonna get $hit faced on this flight!

Getting hungry again, one of those kebab wrap things like you have up the cross at 4am, only $8, but hold the pesto (whatever that crap is?). No? Ok, I'll just wipe the pesto $hit off on the seat in front (good thing they are vinyl).

Uh oh, need a pi$$ after all that VB. Beudy, might just hang a slash down the aisle, seems like the done thing with this mob.

Look out, just chucked up the kebab, can I have some water, no wuzzas at $3.50.

All right!!!!, 16hr transit in Darwin, so I might just have enough time to duck out for a coupla durries and few more coldies!

Finally made it to Singa's, now where's a cab? I'm gettin straight over to Patpong, been hangin out to see those ping pong ball sheilas.

You'd have to be a real spanker to go full service, when you can get all this on Jetstar!!!!

[Roger that.]

600ft-lb. Well done Sir. After reading this site for sometime now, your words struck such a note with me I had to join up and tell you so. When you get into work to find you've got guys away on PCT training, saftey, quality, OHS meetings, SAFE projects, EBA meetings (because they've dragged out so long) and the same old guys are there with their hands on the spanners & then to be told I missed out on training because I dont get involved in enough projects, it makes me wanna hit something. All these escapes have been brought to us by the same people who didn't get us new aircarft, new route's, new idea.....Our bosses.

Mr Smith. I've got to ask. Joyce turns up on your front door of your new airline that you own wanting a job. You've got CEO, Pilot, LAME, F/A, Check-in, hanger cleaner and poo remover from toilet pump postions up for grabs. What would you give the man?

[gobbledock]

I have no intention on getting into any Dick bashing, but I would like Dick to clarify the below comment made by one of his business colleagues;
The problem I see at the present time is that most business colleagues I know consider that airlines like Emirates and Etihad are just as safe as Qantas and, in fact, claim to me that they have even newer aircraft and because of that they are safer.
Dick, do you subscribe to this point of view ? Do you also believe that if an airline operates 'newer' aircraft that makes them safer, in theory ?
If your answer is YES, then it is a good thing that you are no longer boss of CASA.
Besides, being the Director of CASA does not add any value to one's CV. Predominately CASA has been run by worthless bureaucrats, pilots who have aviator skills but no in-depth safety system skills, government whips and an assortment of lobbyists and other bottom dwellers.

[1a sound asleep]

The problem I see at the present time is that most business colleagues I know consider that airlines like Emirates and Etihad are just as safe as Qantas and, in fact, claim to me that they have even newer aircraft and because of that they are safer.

Dick, do you subscribe to this point of view ? Do you also believe that if an airline operates 'newer' aircraft that makes them safer, in theory ?

Problem is the average Joe in the street no longer sees QF as being the leader is safety. They read about RB211s dramas, mechanics using one hand to fix planes and of course the A380 accident. They see nice new planes, with better comforts, on airlines that are not bashed by the media at cheaper fares than QF on more direct routes.

Its not hard to see why QF is losing customers. QF is no longer the obvious/only choice to/from Australia - sorry that's reality.

[gobbledock]

Maybe QF has lost customers for this reason from early this year --Old 747 BNE/LA, crap seating, crap food, crap service, crap price, crap delay (both flights), crap onboard entertainment (U/S of course), disgusting onboard ****ters.........and on it goes. Never again.

[Luke SkyToddler]

If everything in every industry gets off shored a whole bunch of us will be unemployable. What do we do then? No jobs for garbos or checkout chicks anymore, they've been replaced by machines. Are us workers just unviable as a group? Should we march into the sea for the good of the country, or just sit around collecting the dole and voting Labor until the country goes broke, a la the UK? Every 'basic' job that is offshored is a basic job lost to an Australian, probably a dumb Australian but nonetheless a worker who supports him/herself and maybe a family. If it's not viable to employ Australians, then what is the viability of the country? Should we all move Back Home (because Home's doing so well at the moment, at least they've stopped throwing grenades this week )?

Kind of ironic isn't it. An economy that was essentially built over the last couple of centuries on the basis of less-fortunate unemployed European folk, migrating halfway round the world, just so they could get a job way out in the Australian boonies doing hard graft, farming or mining. That was the "globalization" of the 19th century and I'm sure people in Europe didn't rate it too highly then either.

Fast forward a couple of centuries and you're the victims of your own success. The primary-industry (and particularly mining) economy that those guys created, has been so incredibly successful that it's driven your dollar, your cost-of-living and your cost-of-doing-business to stupendously high levels. Everything in Australia has gotten really really expensive all of a sudden. That's why Dick is getting his aircraft maintenance done in Dubai, it's pretty much the root of the entire problem.

It isn't just QF, every employer who can get away with it, is typing "asian wages" into their currency converters at the moment, and slavering at the chops to export some of their costs to other cheaper economies. Especially ones like international airlines, who are seeing large parts of their income getting wiped out by these crazy exchange rates. It's obviously kind of hard for BHP to export a hole in the ground, but service industries like airlines are just about custom made for offshoring sadly.

You wouldn't have seen this 20 years ago when it was $0.50US to $1AU I'm sure. There's going to be nothing but massive pain for the normal aussie consumer and employer as long as those exchange rates stay so high, especially the ones who live in the east coast cities that are thousands of miles away from the boom.

On the bright side, at least in a few years once they've outsourced every single Aussie pilot's job to NZ / Asia, you can all move to Karratha and earn more working as unskilled labour on a building site than you were earning in your previous existence as a Jetstar F/O :ouch:

[The Professor]

“The problem I see at the present time is that most business colleagues I know consider that airlines like Emirates and Etihad are just as safe as Qantas and….”

And this is a problem? It’s rather sad that you view the improvement in flight safety within the global industry as presenting a “problem” to one particular airline.


“….in fact, claim to me that they have even newer aircraft and because of that they are safer.”

They do indeed have newer aircraft and they may even be safer as a result. They are certainly more reliable.

“If we want to keep a majority of Australians employed by Qantas we will have to somehow convince people to pay more for their airfares with Qantas. I think this could be possible, but very difficult.”

And this is the statement that flies in the face of basic capitalist principles. Australia does operate as a market driven economy right? We all love the result of fierce competition in every other industry except for the one that employs us. Capitalism is great when it comes to cheap Nike’s and Ipods but please protect my job from market forces, please.

“They have no OH&S! They have no superannuation! They have no annoying unions! They will shut up and do what they are told! They are compliant!”

Yep. Which is why these emerging markets are going to leave us for dust. Do you think complaining is going to change they way they do business or are you going to strategize ways in which you can compete more effectively?

“I doubt that the average Chinese aviation worker is dropping AUD$60 a shop at the local Coles/Woolies for basic in season vegies, 3 star mince and econo bacon or over twenty grand in tax.”

Nope. Food and lodging in most parts of China are VERY cheap which is why employees can be paid significantly less than their counterparts in high cost countries such as Australia. If the business can dispense with high salaries that are required to cover high living costs then it will.

It is not realistic to expect QF to charge more for their service simply to support wages and benefits that are no longer globally competitive.

[faheel]

I really see this in simplistic terms.
The real problem for Qantas is the ****ty deal the have been dealt by the Australian Goverment.
They allow multiple middle eastern carriers to fly virtually unrestricted into Australia, they allow Emirates 5th freedom rights across the ditch at the expense to Qantas and Air New Zealand and what is the benefit for Qantas? absolutely nothing.
Do Qantas fly to Dubai, Qatar, Abu Dhabi?, they do not because there is virtually no market for those destinations.
The middle eastern carriers milk passengers from the Kangaroo route, take them to London with a stopover in Dubai where virtually no one gets off.
The really simple answer here is to stop the likes of Emirates flying here or severely restricting the number of pax they are allowed to uplift or, in Qantas's case flying to London via Dubai/Abu Dhabi/Qatar provided they are allowed 5th freedom rights on from the middle east.

Now this bit is said with a bit of tongue in cheek
They sell us their oil, get the dosh we pay for it, buy really nice aeroplanes, fly to oz,and get even more money from us by by flying us to all points west !;)

[Shark Patrol]

They sell us their oil, get the dosh we pay for it, buy really nice aeroplanes, fly to oz,and get even more money from us by by flying us to all points west !

I agree with you completely Faheel, but this is the capitalist Nirvana that The Professor drools over. And you did leave out the Prof's bit about their staff doing it on slave wages with no super, no pesky unions and no complaints. I just wish the Prof and Ken B would get out from under AJ's desk and f**k off to China, Vietnam or somewhere else without internet access.

The Professor would be happy for the Australian aviation industry to DIE because it suits his corproate ethos. Mind you Qantas would be already DEAD if scrotum-head had succeeded with the APA bid, plus it was the Coalition government that established the Open Skies arrangements so if Julia is given the boot, their will be no respite from the continuous pressure from government.

This industry sadly is rooted!!! Qantas pilots have no longer got anything to lose - hence the PIA result.

[teresa green]

SQ. Ok with you people that at 35 years of age, their female cabin crew are considered past it, not males only females, and are put out to pasture, regardless of whether they want to continue flying or not. Charming. THE THE. I must be one of the lucky ones on JQ which I fly often. Their Star class is excellent, it compares well with J class on many other carriers, in battery hen class its ok as far as I am concerned, I have yet to have a bad flight or come across bad cabin crew. As for bogans, Qantas had the monopoly on them for years, check out their bloody dreadful FunJets, Bali flights, Fiji flights, when smoking pot up the back was considered norm in the 80's. The only difference is the bogan is far more vicious now, and far less likely to receive any penalty for bad behaviour. JQ bashing is not going to help QF, never will, only QF can help QF, getting rid of Clifford and Joyce would be a good start.

[Air Ace]

There is something not quite right with Qantas claim that Qantas International is losing money and Jetstar is profitable – the facts don’t seem to stack up?

The 2010 Aviation Statistical Report (http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/04/Files/CY10.pdf). Page 26 gives Qantas international load factors: 82.8% outbound; 80.0% inbound, with the longest haul to the UK, Canada and Europe, virtually protected, high yield routes, around 86% load factor. If an airline can't make profits on 86% passenger load factors either it's tariff structure is critically flawed or it should not be in the game!

Jetstar international load factors: 76.8% outbound; 78.2% inbound. In theory, Jetstar costs are lower only in wages/salaries and possibly non operational overheads but their fuel costs, landing and airport fees etc must be comparable to Qantas, whilst Jetstar fares are lower per seat/kilometre, resulting in far lower revenue yields?

The Qantas outbound and inbound long haul load factors are well above the average and comparable to airlines with similar cost bases to Qantas (United, Air Canada, British Airways etc).

Is the Qantas international problem inventive accounting, poor route and schedule decisions and an ultimate plan to franchise the airline overseas, contrary to the Qantas Sale Act? I don’t understand why Qantas Board and management appear intent of destroying an Australian icon? There needs to be greater wage flexibility and a hard look at cost allocations within the Qantas Group, management and executive salaries and decisions.

[Worrals in the wilds]

Interesting, Air Ace.
...and a hard look at...management and executive salaries and decisions.I'm sure they won't be offshoring or downgrading those for the good of the shareholders, despite the disparity between Australian and Asian exec salaries being similar to the disparity between worker wages. :yuk::yuk::yuk:

[max1]

The answer is complicated. For a start, if we want to keep a majority of Australians employed by Qantas we will have to somehow convince people to pay more for their airfares with Qantas. I think this could be possible, but very difficult.
I don't mind paying a bit more if I thought that the money was going to support Australian workers. I buy my petrol at the Independent operators even though it is a bit more expensive as I know that money is supporting a small business. I have an issue in paying extra for a CEOs multi-million dollar bonus as he dismantles and shafts a company and its people.
During the drought a mate with a cattle and sheep property, told me of the farce that was being visited on consumers by the big supermarkets. He was destocking due to the drought, they were getting 3/5 of bugger all as it was a buyers market. The supermarkets were charging a motza and blaming it on the drought, and we city folk all bought it because it sounded like a reasonable and sensible argument.
It doesn't matter what reasonable steps the people who want to save Qantas take, the DNA of people like Clifford and Joyce will never be happy.
As far as Brian Grey at Compass, I know people who got burnt twice working at Compass, who said they would have gone back to work for him again as they liked the man that much.
That is a definition of leadership and success that you can't put a definitive dollar value on because it's priceless. The MBA numptys who have infested Australian management will never understand that.

[SMOC]

From one of dicks earlier posts...the communist chinese government restrict access to hKG to protect CX....Who do they restrict. was trying to think of who I HAVN't seen there. We have Qantas/Air New Zealand/Virgin Atlantic/British Airways/Emirates/Qatar/Singapore/Thai/United/Air Canada/Lufthansa/Air France/South African/ Air India/Aeroflot/ANA/Japan Airlines/Finnair/Phillapines/Etihad/Korean Airlines/KLM/Air pacific/Jetstar Asia?hong Kong Airlines and Express + all the local carriers. yep the chinese really have the reins on tight there don't they. If you dont have "less" on you have.......
The QF pilots dont aim for the dirt so why is the management.


And where do CX fly to? Every destination those airlines are based and usually with more frequency, except for Finnair and Air Pacific which I'm sure they probably codeshare with until CX decides to drop a 777-300ER in, plus they own Dragonair to take care of China.

CX has been cutting costs since the 90s, most LAMEs are no longer expats they're either HK Chinese or Philipino these days, we don't even see the LAME most times but there is an army of mechanics (you'd be hard pressed to call them an AME), if you ask them anything technical they get strait on the radio to call a LAME over. Our most junior cabin crew are on less than AUD$1,500 p/m.
CX no longer hire [pilots on expat conditions], engineers contracts are being renewed without expat terms. Take it or leave it is the usual treatment.

CX is run like Low cost airline, with the labour laws to allow it, that's one of the reasons they see no need to create a Jet* of their own. EK is probably similar.

CX has been fortunate with it's location, labour laws and being able to substantially cut it's most expensive manpower costs over the last 20yrs and continue to do so. Something QF has been unable to do other than create Jet*.

Out of curiosity what's the makeup of the ground engineers who meet each A/C for a turnaround ie how many total and how many are LAMEs. Plus how many A/C would you turn round during a shift? (8 hrs?).

Also what's the entry level pay for QF cabin crew?


[Correction: CX hire from overseas but on local conditions of service, up to 50% less than expat terms].

Old fella apologies, I worded that poorly, basically if you're on expat terms you are referred to as an expat and those days are over.

[low_earth_orbit]

A lot of what is going on here at the moment with Qantas is posturing the public and political environment for the move of more of the company offshore - hence the Joyce speech to the National Press Club two months prior to the release of the final year results and the announcement of what will no doubt be a significant change in the 'group' strategy for Qantas mainline. So we're kept waiting and the board listen for public comment in the meantime to judge public and political sentiment.

It is unhelpful when someone with a public aviation and business profile such as Dick Smith to adds weight or even implicit support to the eventually flawed strategy that the Qantas CEO and the board are looking to pursue.

Such comments from Dick Smith are irresponsible, and even more mind-boggling when for so long he has claimed to be a champion of the cause of local businesses over the foreign owned entities and I for one will remember his words when I don't have a job anymore. He can troll out all the letters he has written and he can claim tacit support for Aussie jobs, but the headline he has created is all that matters - what I read and what the public reads is "Qantas should move to Asia or go broke". If he was fair dinkum about trying to level the aviation playing field with respect to foreign carriers and open skies he'd keep his public mouth shut and quietly talk to Julia and Albanese et al first.
:=

[Old Fella]

SMOC Are you saying that this article is telling untruths regarding pilot recruitment?

Cathay Pacific response to locally employed pilots (http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_INTL/aboutus/pressroomdetails?refID=be10e5359f1b6210VgnVCM62000007d21c39_ ___)

This article states quite clearly that CX recruits overseas for expertise and experience, as it has done since inception. :(

[Air Ace]

low_earth_orbit

I think you missed the point - go back and read Dick Smith's post on the first page of this thread:

Would you really prefer that I don’t state the truth and just watch while Qantas goes broke? Surely not! I am the person who has consistently said that I am happy to pay more to fly with Qantas because I consider it safer – but I am a lone voice. In fact, I was attacked mercilessly by the industry, including pilots, when as Chairman of CASA I told people not to always fly with the cheapest airline.

The public judge an airline first on service, secondly safety. In years gone by Qantas was the first and often only choice for Australians travelling overseas. Qantas service is not what it used to be, the public perception of Qantas impeccable safety is sorely tested and Australia's Open Skies policies has introduced excessive choice and competition.

But read my post above, the claim that Qantas LH is unprofitable, versus Jetstar profitability, tests credibility, unless QF LH is burdened with excessive costs and less than ideal tariff, schedule, equipment and general management decisions.

[Kangaroo Court]

Dick Smith has it right this time. The government is not allowing our jobs to be done on a livable wage by opening up so much capacity from other countries, some that could barely afford to feed their own people 30 years ago.

[Black Stain]

Dick speaks truth. From a business perfective only (ignoring sentimental or moral argument) and under the current free trade rules that EK enjoys, the only part of Qantas that a thrifty CEO would want to keep is the name and logo.

I believe this restructure is going to deeply shock the QF pilot group. Wake up guys there is a tsunami coming straight at you. What are you going to do? Strike? I don't think so, that would most likely spin in Joyce's favor.

How can your pilot group work with this CEO to steer this restructure to a less painful end? Maybe you guys need a shock?

[Air Ace]

Yes, my choice of spelling is not always impeccable. Nor does your post contribute much of relevance to this thread? :p

[ejectx3]

When the negotiating team ask Joyce's team "what do you need from us to make this work" and are met with blank stares, I suspect no matter how many efficiencies were offfered it would never be enough. He is out to sideline QF pilots regardless.

[mohikan]

Joyce wants QF pilots not only gone from QF, but gone from the industry.

He wants each pilot bankrupt and personally destroyed.

There is no deal to be done, as much as we want to do one.

QF could pay the current and future pilots nothing and the airline would still fail. Its too far gone.

A lot of wank and naivety on this thread

[skybed]

it's not the little irishmen who runs the show. he is the mouth piece and every time he gets instructions he is summond to Melbourne.:ugh:

[hbomb]

I have been a constant (in both senses) Qantas passenger for over forty years. For the first time, I am really concerned that we will lose the company. I have in front of me now souvenirs from PanAm and Ansett that remind me that the unthinkable can happen. Quickly.

[Lean Sigma]

Will the real Dick please show his true colours. :confused:

Chameleon Dick

[astroboy55]

He wants each pilot bankrupt and personally destroyed.

which is exactly what QF employees (not just pilots...) want for Joyce

[Walter E Kurtz]

If I were Allan Joyce...

Downsize the least cost effective quarter, pick a whole fleet, 767 or A330, move it offshore. Transfer that domestic work to JQ. Thats the easy part, what to do with the staff??? Offer leave without pay, offer voluntary redundancy, then bring out the axe.

He keeps the name, logo and valuable public repute while kicking his own goals. And the share holders will love him for it.

Not saying it's right, not saying he's wrong either, but it's a fair speculation considering the times.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Transfer that domestic work to JQ.

He keeps the name, logo and valuable public repute

:confused:

I think one of the main reasons QF staff are so pissed off with AJ is the trashing of the BRAND ... it used to be the absolute gold standard of airlines and Australian businesses ... now due to Jetstar, the lack of investment in the cabin product, the industrial relations sh!tstorm, etc etc, the Qantas name has been dragged thoroughly through the mud on AJ's watch. And the public aren't stupid they know JQ is Qantas-but-not. And they'll know it too if they see little "operated by Qantasia" stickers on the doors.

The image of "quality" has been absolutely gutted out of Qantas by all this stuff, that has done absolutely incalculable damage to Qantas imo. Doesn't show up on the short term bottom line so he doesn't care, he'll be out of there with his golden handshake in a couple of years. But long term, once people lose respect for a brand they used to love and value, then it doesn't matter WHERE in the world it's based, it's going to go downhill fast.

[Walter E Kurtz]

The real issue here Luke is value for money when analyzing labour costs.

JQ and QF pilots perform identical duties but at a vastly different cost. Do you believe that JQ pilots are less proficient, less professional, less experienced and more scruffy looking? I grant the average operatioal experience level would be higher at QF but not the quantum gap you imagine. There are many old hands on deck at JQ.

What demonstrable hard data do you have to prove your extra value as a QF pilot? What data does Allan Joyce access? I would like to compare the FOQA data for the entire group. Ask your chief pilot for a copy for the last quarter?

When it comes to cabin service there can be no argument. Asian cabin crew work harder without 'attitude', smile more, weigh much less, look better in a dress and cost only a fraction.

I agree you are not living the dream Luke, you are living in a dream, and Mr Joyce is about to wake you up.

[TBM-Legend]

Dick Smith is merely stating the obvious. How many cars are made here these days vs. imports. Even Ford/Toyota/GM only do token manufacturing here because of high cost structures.

Dick is correct on how people vote with their wallets....

Chaps you will not win on protection only on productivity and SERVICE. Disrupting your loyal customers is not how to keep their support.

[stubby jumbo]

Dream on Wally,

Granted Asian hosties look priddy damn good in their outfits.;)

BUT,
Fact #1 there are 4-5 MORE on a SQ A-380 vs QF A-380.
Fact #2 -"work harder".....mmmmm-where's your "demonstrable hard data" on this one Wally???
Fact #3- "smile more" -why wouldn't you when you are working for an outfit that treats their staff with respect and not total contempt!
Fact#4-"without attitude"-see above
Fact #5-"....cost only a fraction"..--great !! here we go again.... another economic rationalist. So this makes it all hunky dory does it ??? Rah Rah for the almighty dollar. Screw the aussie worker.

When you wake up from your slumber and find your kids can't get jobs,afford to buy a house/car & have no sense of purpose.

What then -send them off to work in Asia -where there are all the jobs we exported in the first place?

Your lack of logic (for a pilot) astounds me ????

And before you come back with.....if you don't like it LEAVE.

I am.

Hasta La Vista .....Baby:E

[Luke SkyToddler]

Check my location Walter ... I've never worked for any QF airline, just an interested observer.

I don't disagree with you on pilot proficiency or value, or indeed on the superior sex appeal of asian women ... but that has absolutely nothing to do with the QF BRAND. Me and you know that JQ and QF pilots are equally good, skilful and professional operators but Joe Public does not. Joe Public thinks that QF pilots are all steely jawed superstars and low cost pilots must somehow not be good enough for the real thing. For example Jetstar has already had some collateral damage in the papers from this whole Tiger shutdown and the associated fallout. Qantas hasn't.

You think they would have made "Rain Man" featuring Jetstar? That is what QF has, or had, that made it special, not the pilots or anything else. And all this dilution of the core values of the brand, with Jetstar and Jetconnect and Qantas-asia, Dixon and Joyce have done nothing but confuse the public and devalue their most priceless asset.

Look at Virgin now, and ask yourself, when that started out, what did Branson bring to the table apart from the sheer value of the Virgin brand? Do you think that if the financial backers had been boring nameless industrial investors, that it would have caught the public imagination and taken off like it did?

Branson gets it, he's spent his whole life building this image of Virgin as sexy and desirable and high quality, and if he's ever found himself in a situation where the Virgin name or brand might get mixed up in something unsavoury he's gotten out of there fast. (i.e. Virgin Nigeria). Hell will freeze over before he buys or invests in a LCC, even though it probably would be more profitable than his current airline, because he knows the splash damage it would do to his core brand.

[Walter E Kurtz]

Good luck on your new path Stubby.

#1 Even with extra crew they still cost a fraction, that actually sharpens my point.
#2. Having worked extensively with both, Asian crew consistently work harder
#3 & 4. But they are also treated poorly by management; but they manage to smile and enjoy the job?
#5 Your existence serves no purpose to your boss if you cannot sustain profit. Now that's a real fact.


Luke I'm betting Mr Joyce hopes to restore service and image with fresh youthful and enthusiastic cabin crew, but he cannot do it from here (OZ).

[StallBoy]

Why do Australians keep complaining about being dudded by our governments:bored:. Keating was all about "Globalisation" and destroying our industries then howard wanted to return the workers to 16th centuary conditions and slavery:\. The present government wants to throw away our guns and take the world on with slingshots.
It seems to be an australian tradition that governments listen to the coach of the other team and expect australian companies to survive in the jungle. Never seen an australian government that looked after australians and a australias interists:{.
GET USED TO IT:ugh:

[surfside6]

You fail to understand basic economics.I doubt you are Australian
This economy of ours(Aust) is suffering from a general lack of confidence.
Spending is being curtailed and savings are increasing.
Deprive people of an adequate wage and they will spend less
Real estate prices fall as demand dries up;Less cars are bought,less children attend private schools,inventories build and investment declines.
This Qantas business stinks to high heaven and clowns like you pontificate from the sidelines.
We have learnt nothing from the GFC.Those that cause the problems escape while those that are victims of managment incompetence and arrogance pay a price of having their livelihoods off shored.
It is only through an accident of history that australians find themselves in proximity to Asia and its cheap labour and these areholes are going to take full advantage of that proximity and destroy one of the few icons that Australians can call their own.
When it fails...and fail it will...will they be held accountable ?...No!!!!
Joyce is not Australian and will feel no remorse when he heads back to Ireland with his ill gotten spoils
As for Dick Smith he is merely a small man of small intellect who craves attention and recognition.He needs the spotlight and makes ridiculous statements like this so that it shines on him.He has particpated little in this thread now that he sees he is regarded as a hypocritical tool.
Qantas is making a profit but is being put to death to be sold cheaply to others.The vultures of APA have not gone away .They have merely changed their appearance.
There is an agenda here and some decent investigative journalism will uncover it. There are a few here who seem to be on the right path.
Please keep up the great work

[WorthWhat]

If as Surfside suggests

Qantas is making a profit but is being put to death to be sold cheaply to others.
Concerned, committed employees would buy a controlling interest, change direction and make a tidy profit.

Hope your right.

[Dick Smith]

Surfside I have been reading but not commenting -too frustrating.
Could I suggest you read post no 15 again and my answer to Jay Are re what needs to be done on post 17.

Surfside. Why do you have to be so personally nasty? Is it because anonymity gives you confidence?

I will say it again, if Qantas does not meet the Marketplace and compete it will go broke. Just like Pan Am ,Compass ,AWA and hundreds of others.

If I worked for Qantas I would make sure my Union facilitated the most productive processes possible. I would also have the comonsense to understand that it's got little to do with the personalities of the management,it's all about the difficulties of competing in a marketplace where the costs of many of the competitors are lower.

In this case you lower costs to compete or your customers abandon you.

It happens in every other field of business so why not in aviation.

[surfside6]

Firstly Dick let me apologize for my rant.Sometimes the line between passion and anger is blurred.However if you make comments regarding peoples livelihoods and financial security expect some flak.
Why did you choose this particular moment in time to make such inflammatory observations?
A few million bucks no doubt provides you a lot of confidence.You have no personal stake in this matter.If Qantas lives or dies matters not one jot to you.
You are known for proving quirky aviation commentary.The main reason the media pays you any attention
Without your public persona you would,like me, be just another anonymous boof head posting on PPrune attempting to have your voice heard.
Secondly if you read through the material in this forum you will find that the load factors QF currently enjoys should make it profitable.Indeed a little further research will illustrate that Qantas has been one of the most profitable airlines in the world for years.Off shoring jobs or setting up another franchise abroad will not change the situation.Jetstar franchises are yet to make a profit.Labour costs for the Qantas group run at around 18%.How much will the wages bill be reduced by off shoring employment? Two.three percent ?Hardly significant.
There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation floating around.
The truth needs to out
Mainline has languished for years though lack of investment in the product.The brand needs to be refreshed.
There is a catch 22 at work here.Mainline is supposedly a basket case.This has been caused by lack of investment.But Joyce wont spend any money on a segment of the business not returning its cost of capital.
The problem was caused by lack of capital and can only be fixed by capital investment.
We see a hell of a lot of Jetstar advertising and promotion but very little for Qantas
Again there is another agenda at work here
If customers abandon Qantas it is because of the poor quality of the product and the unsatisfactory route structure.
Where was Emirates 10 years ago?They have invested intelligently in aircraft type and route structure.Look at the results.
Build it and they will come has worked foer them
It has been said a million times...where are the 777s?
Why pull out of SFO when the load factors and yield were satisfactory?.
DFW satisfies no one except the bean counters and American Airlines

[Dick Smith]

Surfside. I chose this moment because there are reports in the media stating that qantas pilots have decided to take industrial action in relation to job security.

This to me would be a bit like the the Engineering Designers at AWA moving to take industrial action for job security after the Whitlam government announced that in future all electronic consumer goods manufactures in Australia would have to compete on a level playing field with Asian manufacturers.

All that would have done is hasten the demise of AWA.

Load factors are important but this doesn't help in the ruthless marketplace if your prices are held lower than normal to get those load factors.

For Qantas International to stay in business it will have to give a viable return to investors. If competitors don't pay tax or have higher depreciation allowances it means that there is a triple whammy against Qantas. That is not only lower labor costs but also lower financing costs .

What I am bringing to public attention is that our Government needs to make a proper decision on this.

We no longer have a consumer electronics manufacturing industry because most voters want the cheaper prices from Asia and are happy to accept that there will be no jobs in this field.

Voters need to be informed that the same will happen to Qantas International if they want the lower fares of an open sky's policy with low cost countries such as China and India.

That is we won't have our own international airline at all or if we do it will be in name only with just about everyone being employed overseas on overseas rates.

What do you reckon voters would go for?

[surfside6]

You were somewhat selective in your response Dick.
The likelihood of Pilot PIA has been on the cards for months.
You need to look at the evidence regarding Qantas Mainline profitability.Something doesnt add up but you choose to ignore this and buy the "sky is falling spin"
Where does Jetstar get $500 mil to expand?.Who does its fuel hedging?
The money comes from somewhere.Jetstars cost of capital would be a lot higher than mainline
Big sister is diverting a lot of capital to its little brother.No wonder mainline is not investing money in its languishing product.
Cost cutting has reached critical mass where it has eroded the customer base
So offshoring is now the saviour.
Lobby the government and seek to change the aircraft depreciation schedule changed.
If and only if mainline is losing money then the responsibility for this must be sheeted home to management.Again the workforce pays the price for management incomptence.
Calling the pilots who have saved Qantas aircraft on more than one occasion "kamikazes' is repugnant.
Dick you need to do a whole lot more critical research before you start agreeing with the Qantas management solutions

[Captain Dart]

It's funny that the CEO's don't get outsourced as well (Ireland doesn't count). There are plenty of very well-educated Asians who would do the same job cheaper and probably better.

Dick, I applaud your stance on Australia's population, but in aviation matters...

Edited to say that I agree with t cas's concern regarding the national security implications of 'offshoring' the flag carrier.

[t_cas]

The Carbon Tax will be a significant shackle to the competitive aspects of any of our airlines in Australia.

It seems punitive to be taxing what is in essence a very efficient means of mass transport that is continually striving for fuel burn (read Carbon) reduction as a part of its business strategy.

Air transport in this country is close to an essential service and has a driving effect on the economy. Continuity of air transport is critical, the Ansett collapse had a significant impact, (Look at the '89 dispute and the reaction of the Government of the day, providing the RAAF and any manner of overseas charter operator), and more recently the Tiger hiatus.

The manufacturers of the high capacity jet transports, turboprops and ATC and airport systems and support (despite some operational frustrations, which are mainly political), are all geared towards efficiency and therefore a reduction in the carbon footprint.

The industry has been robust, (look at the floods, severe weather, volcanic ash, GFC etc), and has maintained an operational safety record the envy of the world.

We live in a country that people want to visit! We live in a country with resources that the world needs and we can also provide food for many.

The argument regarding wages is somewhat mute when considering that the wage growth in the industry did not keep up with other industries. This can be attributed to many aspects of the aviation industry having the opportunity to actually regress wages due to new business models. Productivity for the current wages is far higher than that of the past.

This is a great industry, like others in Australia, that have built this nation and continue to provide a future service to the economy and the people. The skills, the employment, the pride and most important, the future of our children.

With all of this in our hands, our government decides that we should lead the world and clean up the atmosphere. This will kill Australia as we know it. It will cost families, it will cost business, it will cost our ability to defend our nation as we become less and less able to afford to do things for ourselves.

I say bring back as much as we can like steel manufacturing, nuclear power expertise, solar panel production, glass production, cars, trucks, ships you name it, we should be doing it.

To make my point consider this:

If a major supermarket chain can import bread dough from the USA, then bake it in the store and sell it for a DOLLAR! Who will be baking bread for us in 10 years time. How carbon friendly is it to be shipping bread dough across the oceans when we grow very good wheat here? Who will can our fruit when it is cheaper to ship it in from thailand because our farmers have gone out of business because they are carbon taxed for providing raw produce here in our own country for our own consumption?

I am very tired of hearing the glass half empty vitriol. We can have very competitive operations based here in Australia. We are innovative. We are hard working. We love a challenge and at the end of the day, we love to have a beer and chew the fat!

Keep QANTAS here, Keep all of our industry here. Get rid of our incompetent leaders and their self serving, idealistic environmental hero agendas!

I am off to have an Australian Beer, or maybe even a local red!!! It will be assisting some very palatable local produce that I will be having for dinner.

[peuce]

Dick, you are correct in a sense ... that sense is that IF QANTAS wants to compete in a low cost environment, then it has to lower overheads.

But myself, and others, have suggested that the best bet for QANTAS to live a long and happy life is NOT to foolishly compete with the LCCs ... instead, maintain(create?) a premium brand, with a premium product, with premium maintenance and equipment, going to premium ports, at a premium fare.

The only question is ... is there still a market for a premium product?

[1a sound asleep]

The only question is ... is there still a market for a premium product?

I cant fathom why so many are missing the key issue. YES there is plenty of premium market. But premium pax want

1. High level of service
2. Reliability
2. Fast service to ultimate destination

So I live in SYD and want to travel to Moscow, Athens, Zurich, Rome Madrid, Glascow or anothr 50 airports that QF does not have a direct connection to

Pax are fed up with being herded through LHR and LAX. QF has lost its premium market to other airlines who can offer a one stop connection to many destinations, cheaper and faster, with newer planes and no change in airlines

Random example one way in Aug 2011 SYD-MAN from expedia

AU$1,535.51 inclusive of all taxes and fees
21:10 Depart Sydney (SYD)
Arrive Manchester (MAN) 12:25 +1 day
Duration: 24hr 15mn Emirates 413 / 17


AU$1,775.27 inclusive of all taxes and fees
15:15 Depart Sydney (SYD)
Arrive Manchester (MAN) 07:30 +1 day Thu 18-Aug
Duration: 25hr 15mn Etihad Airways 6451 / 15
Connect in Abu Dhabi


AU$1,985.87 inclusive of all taxes and fees
16:55 Depart Sydney (SYD)
Arrive Manchester (MAN) 11:25 +1 day
Duration: 27hr 30mn Qantas Airways 1 British Airways 2906
Connect in London 2 stops

AND I ad the above are premium airlines, not low cost carriers.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

1.45 hours difference between Etihad and Qantas.

That's not a considerable difference.

Price - well that's subjective across many fronts.

And extra stop - yes. Is that the end of the world - no.

You'll always have premium loyalty that will stick with QF LH for the simple fact they're QF SH premium customers and loyalty programs e.g. QF FF carry a lot of weight.

Or as Barry Jackson will say - "Australians want Australian pilots flying Qantas aircraft" :yuk:

[porch monkey]

Dick, while we're at it, I would still like a straight answer to my question posed in post #21.
Thanks.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I just love the latest reported results from Etihad??

They have extended the idea of profit before EBITD ( Earnings before Interest, Tax and Depreciation) to a new EBITDR ( all the others plus rentals --- ie; lease costs)

As the commentator in the SMH remarked, their "profit" results would be even more impressive if it was EBITDRFL ( ie; all the others plus fuel and labor) , that is earnings before any expenses.

This is the cloud cuckoo land economics that even SQ can't compete against (look at their latest results).

The sad thing about all this is that pilot costs are not the real issue for QF, but management has made it the issue, because "pilot bashing", like "doctor or lawyer bashing" is always good politics ---- except if your are a passenger who has just got off QF 32 -- no complaints there that Discrepancy or Dave Evans were overpaid ---

No demand from those passengers for the alleged savings arising from only hiring short term contract pilots whose only qualifications are a valid ICAO license and to be warm and walking.

Dick's not quite right about engineering labor costs, have a look at how competitive NZ is ---- the overall very negative regulatory framework in Australia (not just CASA) makes us increasingly uncompetitive.

Tootle pip!!

['holic]

Or as Barry Jackson will say - "Australians want Australian pilots flying Qantas aircraft" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gifActually, it's Qantas pilots flying Qantas aircraft. As opposed to the cheapest ATPL they can find with a heartbeat. You probably don't have a problem strapping your kids in on a carrier crewed by the lowest common denominator, but a lot of people do.

[mmciau]

1a sound asleep

I recently flew MEL-AUH-DUB and return with Etihad, just to avoid at all costs, going anywhere near Heathrow.

What interested me was that Etihad, inbound into AUH on the the way to DUB, was running behind time (about 2 hours) so Cabin Staff notified all passengers that were flying from AUH to Moscow, Athens, Milan, etc that they will be given priorty on landing so they could get their ongoing flights, some of which were being held to meet this incoming aircraft.

Mike

[1a sound asleep]

1a sound asleep

I recently flew MEL-AUH-DUB and return with Etihad, just to avoid at all costs, going anywhere near Heathrow.

What interested me was that Etihad, inbound into AUH on the the way to DUB, was running behind time (about 2 hours) so Cabin Staff notified all passengers that were flying from AUH to Moscow, Athens, Milan, etc that they will be given priorty on landing so they could get their ongoing flights, some of which were being held to meet this incoming aircraft.

Mike

Thankyou, this is the point I was making. It's you and thousands of other ex QF pax that are deserting QF for EK and EY

Now if the QF plan is the emmulate the the type of Etihad/Emirates service by utilising a hub in China then just maybe we should be open to AJ's concept (I still acknowledge he comes across as a creepy and untrustworthy little sneak).

WE must accept that the old kangaroo route is on its deathbed. Change has to happen - QF is getting eaten alive by these other carriers

[Dick Smith]

Porch Monkey - Re your post #21

Unfortunately I can’t help – I know nothing about the Qantas balance sheet, I don’t have any shares in Qantas and I don’t have any involvement in Qantas in any way.

What I am saying is just plain common sense. I will say it again – if Qantas has to compete on routes from Australia to London with airlines that have far lower costs but which are, in the public’s mind, just as safe, then Qantas will have to lower its costs to compete.

Even if, as you claim, it is subsidising Jetstar from Qantas mainline, it still does not solve the basic problem, i.e. that the Australian Government, supported by the Australian voter, has decided we should have an open skies policy with countries with far lower costs than ours.

This means that we either match the costs or we convince the public to pay higher prices on our airline or we go broke. Surely you can see this.

I can’t see what it has to do with the personalities involved. It is just basic economics. Anyone who runs a small business knows that you have to be able to compete on price, otherwise you don’t stay in business.

It’s the same with Qantas – it will just take a bit longer for a reality to be forced on everyone involved.

[Captain Nomad]

Anyone who runs a small business knows that you have to be able to compete on price, otherwise you don’t stay in business.


True to a point, but what about product differentiation as has already been mentioned? People who are buying a premium product are more concerned about what they are getting for their money than the price point alone. If this were not the case, BMW would be out of buisness thanks to Daewoo...

[Toruk Macto]

I would only be prepared to fly qantas if I got a cheap ticket. The age of the aircraft and the risk of a air return must be reflected in the price.

[balance]

Dick, I've a feeling that porch monkey's point is this: Qantas' balance sheet is being fraudulently altered to support exactly your argument. They are saying that Qantas can't compete and that Jetstar is holding up the operation.

Most of us within the Qantas group will suggest that the opposite is true. Qantas is doing very nicely thank you - international included - and if it weren't for the parasitic subsidiary, would be doing even better.

The main thrust of the argument is this - Qantas CAN compete, even with current staff salaries. The way it can do this is by increasing productivity (YES - we can give and make allowances and do things better - of this there is no dispute), engaging staff (something that does not fit into current executives agenda) and developing the product (it's been woeful for years - again a total management failure).

if Qantas has to compete on routes from Australia to London with airlines that have far lower costs but which are, in the public’s mind, just as safe, then Qantas will have to lower its costs to compete.


Therein lies the problem. Qantas used to be viewed as the safest airline, and patriotic Australians were so happy to see a red rat to take them home. Greedy management have mismanaged the product so badly that this is not as valuable a marketing tool as it once was.

Qantas IS able to compete without moving to Asia. It simply needs the direction and the leadership. At the moment, the people running the company border on criminal, and in some case may well have crossed that line.

So what do we do? Reward incompetant management and say "yes it's ok - you move jobs overseas, lets not worry about the consequences to Australia"?

Or do we stand up as a nation - rather like we are currently saying to Ms Gillard re carbon tax, and do we do the right thing, and say to greedy executives who wish to destroy our way of life in favour of theirs "No - we are not going to let you!"

Which is why I'm surprised and disapointed at your point of view. You have never shyed away from doing the right thing before - even if others disagreed. We must do the right thing now - we must say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH". Stop this before we have NO country left!

So you lobby the Government, Dick, and you'll have lots of support on this forum, as well as in the public. But I'd rather see the ship go down than lose our jobs to Asia. Whether you fight with us or not - have no doubt, we will fight.

[newsensation]

To some extent i agree with Mr Smith, costs have to be managed if Qantas is to remain profitable but it does not automatically follow that Qantas has to stop employing Australians and relocate to Asia, what if the problem was in poor management, incorrect selection of Aircraft and lack of forward planning?
Could Qantas become more efficient and remain Australian, employing Australian trained Pilots and Engineers, with better management?
If after getting the right aircraft for the right routes with an engaged Australian staff, and separating the operating costs of Jetstar and Qantas, things are still not looking good then maybe look to plan B.

[Slasher]

At least I am prepared to stand up for Australians, Australian businesses and Australian pilots and engineers.

What I am saying is just plain common sense. I will say it again – if Qantas has to compete on routes from Australia to London with airlines that have far lower costs but which are, in the public’s mind, just as safe, then Qantas will have to lower its costs to compete.

Anyone who runs a small business knows that you have to be able to compete on price, otherwise you don’t stay in business.

I know nothing about the Qantas balance sheet, I don’t have any shares in Qantas and I don’t have any involvement in Qantas in any way.
http://www.funny-tshirts.biz/images/t_16538.jpg
He makes me laugh a lot! http://serve.mysmiley.net/animated/anim_59.gif

[fl610]

Affordable safety Dick? :ok: :mad:

[Worrals in the wilds]

Anyone who runs a small business knows that you have to be able to compete on price, otherwise you don’t stay in business.

As you would know from your own succesful enterprises, if you are a service provider you also have to compete on good service. This has been a problem for Qantas, particularly on international routes. For many pax it is as big a sticking point as price, particularly if your service is bad and you're still expensive. EK/SQ/CX et al are often not the cheapest fare on offer, but they have a reputation for good service, people know that and choose their product. Qantas simply don't.

Other airlines can provide special meals (my personal soapbox, but many other people have strange eating habits, are nervous flyers etc etc) and staff that seem happy to be there. You don't necessarily need a cabin full of size six hottie FAs, because half the population doesn't give a toss about that. It's about staff who communicate effectively and have a pleasant manner. By and large Virgin manage this with variously sized Australians so it's not just a matter of wheeling out the babes. Rightly or wrongly Qantas has fared poorly in this area and I believe a lot of that is due to the appalling way they treat their staff. I'm not surprised there's a whole aircraft full of grumpy people when they're continually insulted by their own management, both in the press and in private.

There are plenty of small local restaurants paying their staff a pittance but they treat them well and it shows in their performance. Same in the entertainment industry, which has even worse pay and conditions than GA, but people love working in it and are devoted to the service, ie keeping the punters happy. Service may not be the whole problem but it's something the management group just seem to ignore...

[Slasher]

You don't necessarily need a cabin full of size six hottie FAs,
because half the population doesn't give a toss about that.

But Worrals what about us in the other half who do give a toss?

[Cactusjack]

You don't necessarily need a cabin full of size six hottie FAs, because half the population doesn't give a toss about that.
Oh my dear Worrals, and to think we normally agree on most points. Tsk tsk my dear lass, some of us naughty boys still do enjoy the Asian eye candy. Besides if you fly SQ, size 6 are the fat ones !!!!