ANOTHER board member for Qantas

[22k]

Whilst I like some of the stuff this guys says and does, the appointment of yet another board member who has nothing to do with aviation continues to bewilder me.

It seems QF have an allergy for anyone experienced in the field they are in IE aviation.:ugh:

Gruen Transfer's Todd Sampson joins Qantas board (http://www.smh.com.au/business/gruen-transfers-todd-sampson-joins-qantas-board-20150109-12kqzu.html)

Thoughts?

[Arnold E]

He is a salesman......nuff said?

[DynaBolt]

On the board for fairfax media as well...says it all.
Dynabolt

[VR-HFX]

Perfect.

Matches the exact profile of how Australia sells itself globally...we have good ideas and are good salesmen. The only thing missing is the build and operate part...but we can always rely on our global partners to do that for us can't we:ok: well at least until they don't want to do it anymore without also controlling the ideas and the sales as well:ugh: Certainly sells more toilet fresheners to preserve the image that our own.....doesn't cast an odour.

Elaine continues to make Warwick Fairfax look like a legend.

Asia...your chicken is ready:sad:

[Marauder]

For a moment I thought you were going to say Geoffrey Thomas

[AEROMEDIC]

Well, they desperately need SOMEONE to prop up the flagging image of the business since the grounding. They'll have someone to blame if his marketing strategy doesn't work, but perhaps Sampson can at least get them to finally understand how much damage they have done to the business. Perhaps, too, just how many opportunities to repair the relations with their staff have been missed.

One can only hope.

[ACMS]

So what T shirt will he wear now????

[cattletruck]

I think I just figured it out.

Qantas now bats for interior decorating experience over aviation experience.

[C441]

In this tech/info age we must be past the point where we honestly believe an airline could be run well and compete with a bunch of pilots in charge?

We are, but surely someone with genuine, successful airline experience at the board level of an airline would be a reasonable expectation and almost a necessity.

[22k]

I guess what I was getting at was that QF has appointed board member after board member, each one further revealing the mindset of QF management.

Bank execs, finance specialists and now advertising guru's. it just appears that the areas that they are employing top level execs from have had nothing to do with aviation before, resulting in a good focus on finance and marketing but the core of this business (flying punters from A-B) is being neglected when Im sure most would agree is the part of the business that is in desperate need of good experience, expertise and management.

Like I said, This guy is good in his area but is another marketing genius what QF needs? I would've thought some people who bring fleet and route operations strategy etc would be much more useful at the moment.

Only when a product or business has something worth selling do I think the focus should be on the selling!

Get the house in order first THEN start worrying about ad execs I reckon.

[Sunfish]

Its the BRAND boys and girls, it's all about the brand.

The actual business of operating aircraft is a minor triviality in the Boards view.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Smash Bugger, not having any idea what makes your chosen industry tick is a big no no, that's why QANTAS is in such deep poo. I doubt he would appoint you to his board without any advertising experience siting "he has no advertising background", same should apply in our specialised industry. Bad, bad move, and one that reinforces Joyce's contempt for the business that made him rich.

[Boney]

22k, flying punters A to B unfortunately has got nothing to do with it.

It is not an Airline as such, in the traditional way. It is merely a bonus factory. It is business that has been set up in the last decade or so to provide huge bonuses to top 5%, medium size to the next 10% at any cost.

This is the system, metal tubing moving punters across the planet is purely the method that feeds the "factory".

Quite sad really!

[bankrunner]

There is at least some previous airline experience on the QF board.

The outfit Cosgrove used to be in charge of served as an airline for a few weeks in 1989 :E

[Tankengine]

Smash Bugger,
Not every board member needs airline experience, there needs to be a mix. We need advertising, finance experience as well as operational and engineering.
However some/most do need some airline experience, on QF board there is next to none!

bankrunner,
Cosgrove is GG now, no longer on board.

[Boney]

Cosgrove must have been laughing his head off.

After serving as Army chief, "Hey Cosgrove, how would you like to get paid 200K a year to turn up to a Board meeting once a fortnight and waffle on about stuff you know absolutely nothing about."

"$hit yeah"

I can just hear it now, a board member asks, "should we consider getting 777's just like pretty much every other Airline in the world, Google reckons they are very fuel efficient"

Cosgrove, "Whats's a triple seven?"

I have been thinking of putting my name down to join the Medical board. Why not? I don't have any Medical background but give me some good coin and I promise I will turn up on time and give it a good shot.

[Miss F]

I'll give up on the vague dream I had of joining the board then...

[V-Jet]

I saw the headline of him joining a board and thought 'thats interesting, there is at least one other company that values marketing over what it actually does'.

Now you make me read the article and it isn't ANOTHER company at all, it is QF.

No one with any technical skill (or any airline skill or experience) on the board at all.

Either they really do have no idea whatsoever OR they are using the tried and failed technique of making themselves look good by choosing people who do not have the skill set to argue over the many (all?) inane decisions.

Clearly Qf cannot have enough yes men/women in its ranks.

Nothing against him personally, but wouldn't he be also suited to maybe designing and building Space Stations or perhaps Super Tankers? I'm guessing he may have drawn those as a child as well.

[VC9]

I have always thought that pilots have no idea outside of their little world. Comments on this thread just continue to re-enforce that view.

[Mstr Caution]

VC9

I agree with you entirely. When pilots go to work, their primary concern is:

A. The safety of the flight
B. The efficiency of the flight
C. The schedule integrity
D. The welfare & well being of the customers and crew
E. The brand management of the airline
F. The adherence of policy, procedures & regulations

If pilots continually focus on the above aspects, their end goal is to achieve airline expansion & growth which will lead to promotional opportunity.

Airlines executives however, aren't that concerned with the day to day operation of the airline. They leave the operational management aspects to the pilots. They are however concerned with cost minimisation & containment.

Excluding point B above, points A to F all costs the airline money. Therefore pilots & management focus can never be aligned. In my experiences, most of the management garble is lip service.

[V-Jet]

VC9 - Boards of Banks (for example) generally have people with banking experience on them. I guess that would be why you don't see many Primary School Teachers or Nurses on the boards of Westpac or even BHP. As in any industry you can think of, some understanding of that industry is at the very least desired, if not absolutely required.

Airlines are a VERY specific industry - and HIGHLY technical. There are NO technical people at any serious level in Qantas to advise on anything. There is no one with any technical understanding, or even service knowledge. When you have people like Clifford coming out and saying he 'knew little of airline operation other than First Class Lounges before Qantas' you realise how out of their depth they are.

Qantas Management has little idea of what is involved in operating an airline. They need all the help they can get, but they consistently fail to even attempt to remedy the situation. They are so out of their depth in Aviation that they are deliberately choosing 'overseers' who cannot oversee.

Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't (or maybe they did?) try to get Steam Shovel and Mr Squiggle out of retirement - they may have been interested....

Marketing obviously has a place, but marketing CAN only work once EVERYTHING ELSE is in place. This bunch of clowns seriously believe that a Chairmans Club Lounge is more important than correct aircraft choices. And why wouldn't they? That is the limit of their experience....

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Advertising at this point is putting the cart before the horse I think Smash. QF are quickly running out of product worthy of advertising. Sampson may be a real wizard in his field, but we need an airline right now, not a fantasy.

Good luck to him, I will humbly retract my comments if I am proven wrong, but I doubt I will be.

[PLovett]

For most of you on this thread.....

Do you think a company board acts in a vacuum?

Do you really think they come to a company board meeting with nothing but their own thoughts and experiences on which to base any decisions?

If so then you really should get out more or change your reading material. Quite frankly an airline board made up of nothing but pilots would be disastrous. In fact, any company made up of nothing but its own specialists would be disastrous. As an example have a look at Rolls Royce when it was dominated by engineers. They spent it into bankruptcy over issues with the RB-211 from which the Germans picked up the spoils. Oh what irony.

And before any here think of quoting airlines that have prospered with pilots at the head then the vast majority were in the days of complete regulation when running an airline was akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

[V-Jet]

And I agree entirely.

Your words were 'nothing but'.

In Qf's case we have a plethora of experience in various fields but NO-ONE HAS ANY TECHNICAL OR AIRLINE EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER!!!!

10 board members and NONE understand or have any training in the business they are paid to oversee.

And let's put this in perspective. These guys are using their expertise to ensure the safety of how many millions of passengers each year??

I do NOT (nor would any employee) want a board filled with Pilots, Engineers or Canin Crew. But I would expect at least ONE to have some background in the field. I would like a board of -say- 10 to have 1 Cabin Crew, 1 Engineer and 1 Pilot.

It's insane there is ZERO expertise at Board level (and Management being frank) in what Qantas actually does!!

Total madness!

[PLovett]

V-Jet, QANTAS is a company that happens to be an airline. The expertise to run a company should be at the board and CEO and senior management level. The expertise to safely transport people by jet aircraft lies further down the food chain.

It can be argued that serious mistakes have been made at the company management level (think the failure to or delay in aircraft replacement, the on-going cannibalisation of QANTAS due to JetStar, the disposal of profitable routes to an alliance competitor). It can even be argued that some of those mistakes MAY have compromised the safe operation of their aircraft (I am thinking of the sacking of in-house engineers) but I would be very doubtful if that has been done without a full analysis of the safety aspects of the change.

However, the company has announced a return to profitability which is more than most full-service carriers can do. You say, NO-ONE HAS ANY TECHNICAL OR AIRLINE EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER, at the Board level. They don't have to, the advice they will take from the various management levels of QANTAS (which is where that expertise should be) is what is required. What the board has to bring to the table is their own perceptions of what is required for a successful business, apply that to the advice they will be given by management and provide an overall direction for senior management.

From what I have seen of Todd Sampson (albeit only on television) he is someone who can bring a unique set of skills, other than just marketing, to the QANTAS board and that is to be encouraged.

[V-Jet]

Again I agree with you.

With one tiny difference.

THERE ARE TOO MANY UNIQUE SKILL SETS AT QANTAS!!!

All these skill sets are totally irrelevant if the primary reason they are there loses relevence...

No one has a clue about what it is that sends them their (very/outrageously generous) paycheques.

The world is mad!!

PS: The announced 'Profitability' is a myth and purely created for remuneration purposes. Even if you accept it (and I have a BigFoot park for you to enjoy for $1000ph if you do) then just imagine how good it would have been if they hadn't thrown away the best part of $2B!! on lunatic ideas!

[PLovett]

V-Jet, I think we are screaming our agreement at each other.

I am certainly not saying QANTAS hasn't made mistakes (in fact many mistakes) these past years through more than one CEO nor am I saying the board is blameless in those mistakes. Far from it, in fact I believe a lot of the troubles has stemmed from one particular senior board member who has a long history of a certain approach to industrial relations.

I also think a lot of problems has been caused or exacerbated by having a board that was too much of a like kind. By that I mean I don't think they showed the independence that was required of them but tended to rubber-stamp the decisions of the CEO and that certain senior board member. The appointment of Todd Sampson would, I believe, ginger up the board to make that less likely in the future.

The primary reason for the board's existence is to provide oversight and policy direction to the CEO. That may have been compromised but I don't think it has ever lost relevance. It is to make money for the shareholders and it is set down in law. Failure to act in accordance is a big no-no. If the "profitability" is a myth then watch out for fireworks later. Spruking up the share price carries serious penal provisions, especially as QANTAS's single largest shareholder sold down their holding at a profit on the basis of that announcement.

[V-Jet]

They've been 'spruking' mythical profits for years.

My main concern is they simply have no competency, talent or abilities in the one area they are paid monstrous salaries to be competent in.

'Spruking' mythical profits to the market has been going on so long as to be a non issue. Madoff got away with it for decades - as did ENRON and an enormous number of others. And I doubt a single Employee at Qf would give a tinkers cuss about that - IF the company was being run in anything approaching a sensible manner.

But it isn't. It is being systemically dismantled, destroyed and raped. And now yet another 'overseer' has been appointed to 'oversee' without a single relevent credential to bring to the table.

And people wonder why employees have all but given up???

Is Mr Squiggle or Steam Shovel available??? They would be just as useful....

[bankrunner]

I can't think of a single ASX 20 company that doesn't have a significant amount of technical experience in the company's core business on its board. Qantas isn't in the top 20, obviously, but the point remains relevant.

I guess that would be why you don't see many Primary School Teachers or Nurses on the boards of Westpac or even BHP.

Gail Kelly, the current CEO of Westpac used to be a high school teacher :E

That said, she had a quite lengthy banking career after she left teaching.

Ralph Norris kicked off a $600m core banking platform upgrade whilst CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, which put that bank in a position where its competitors will spend several years playing catchup, because of the payment systems and other services that sort of technology uplift enables.

Norris happened to be a career banker with his roots in IT, I can't help but
think that actual experience in the business helped him a lot there.

[22k]

PLovett, this is the problem today, things like this being said....

"The primary reason for the board's existence is to provide oversight and policy direction to the CEO. That may have been compromised but I don't think it has ever lost relevance. It is to make money for the shareholders and it is set down in law."

To make money for the shareholders is not the primary reason for the boards existence. The board is there to run the company well so it performs to its best, turns a profit and THEN, makes money for the shareholders.

Too many boards today are making decisions based on what the shareholders want, NOT what is good for the company.

It's a bloody stupid way to do business really, I mean, without the business, shareholders have nothing don't they? :hmm:

[cattletruck]

After teaching Kelly started at the bottom as a teller and her hard work got her the breaks into the upper echelons, it wasn't meteoric.

Norris was the right man at the right time for the job. CBA was still using Windoze 3.11 when WinXp was the norm, the previous management had backed themselves into an IT sh!thole and Norris was chosen to get them out of it.

I wouldn't even compare Samson with the calibre of the above two.

In fact Samson's skills are in spinning bullsh!t - you can make the connection for yourself as to why he's needed by Qantas.

But that's ok, because this board has an unlimited stockpile of lift fairies and thrust pixies to keep Qantas planes flying well into the future as it seems.

[Sunfish]

PLovett:

The primary reason for the board's existence is to provide oversight and policy direction to the CEO.

No.

The only reason for a Boards existence is to protect the assets of the shareholders.

They do this by operating a system of corporate Governance which basically boils down to risk management. That will of necessity involve questioning the CEO as to how he plans to manage risks that are within his control. The Boards ultimate job is to hire and fire the CEO and that depends on whether his continued presence is seen as a risk commensurate with expected return or not.

In my opinion as a former and very minor CEO, the problem with the current Board not containing experienced airline professionals is that there is no one who can question, let alone assess, the technical airline risks associated with the corporate strategy. They rely totally on management and suppliers like Airbus, Boeing, Rolls Royce, GE, etc. for that, and that is the source of your technical troubles vis a vis A380 vs. B777, etc.

To put that another way; the Board thinks that technical risks associated with running an airline are minor second order issues compared with the risk of damage to the Qantas brand - hence the focus on marketing and PR and the lack of focus on engineering and operations.

In my opinion this problem - the lack of any serious technical and operational experience in senior management is very common across a lot of industries, all you need today is an MBA.....

[30/30 Green Light]

Master of Bull...t Artistry. Says it all !

[V-Jet]

As usual, a very good and non-hysterical summation from Sunfish.

In my opinion this problem - the lack of any serious technical and operational experience in senior management is very common across a lot of industries, all you need today is an MBA.....

The problem is exacerbated in airlines because things can go wrong very fast - and you will be a headline around the world.

I will NEVER forgive that idiot Wirth immediately blaming RR for the QF32, and then even worse, saying it was one of her best performances and 'she likes a good crisis'. Then she gets SUPPORTED, praised and promoted by the CEO (and I would assume the board) for such a stupid act.

And how is a board to understand the dangers of such behaviour if they have zero understanding of the issues?

And that is but one example....


PS: 30/30 - I toyed with the idea of a new handle so the next post after yours would be by 'Eight Green Lights' - but I refrained:)

[AEROMEDIC]

Well summed up , Sunfish.

Additionally, it can be said that Sampsom's inclusion to the board, while providing no real value to the shareholders, will provide some badly needed spin talent in the event of a catastrophic event whatever form it takes e.g. Grounding, global events, etc.
Joyce has surrounded himself with like minded individuals experienced in their respective fields, but excluded those that might question his decision making process. Sampson has good corporate experience, but the marketing "string to his bow" may be just what is needed by Joyce.

[Jabawocky]

In line with Sunny and MSTR CAution, there is a desperate need for some technically competent senior management.

This may not need to be at board level, although you need a few who work with and can understand (not just listen) what that next layer of technical folk are doing/advising.

The board desperately needs more visionary people like Todd Sampson. They need less of Leigh Clifford (specifically).

I am over QF and their BSing to their staff, and their customers. That starts from the Board level. The make up of the board is all wrong, and dare I say it this might actually be one of the few times there has been an appointment of somebody who actually can contribute something useful. The down side is the others are likely to not recognise it and it goes to waste.

[Keg]

Perhaps Qantas feel that William Meaney is enough aviation experience on the board.

William Meaney was appointed to the Qantas Board in February 2012.

He is a Member of the Safety, Health, Environment and Security Committee and the Remuneration Committee

Mr Meaney is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Iron Mountain Inc. He is a Member of the Asia Business Council and also serves as Trustee of Carnegie Mellon University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Mr Meaney was formerly the Chief Executive Officer of The Zuellig Group and a Director of moksha8 Pharmaceuticals Inc. He was also the Managing Director and Chief Commercial Officer of Swiss International Airlines and Executive Vice President of South African Airways responsible for sales, alliances and network management.

Prior to these roles, Mr Meaney spent 11 years providing strategic advisory services at Genhro Management Consultancy as the Founder and Managing Director, and as a Principal with Strategic Planning Associates.

Mr Meaney holds United States, Swiss and Irish citizenships.

Age: 54

Though his background as VP in SAA isn't exactly an operational role!

An interesting comparison with VOz.

1. David Baxby

David Baxby was appointed to the Virgin Australia Board on 30 September 2004. He is also a Director of Tiger Airways Australia Pty Ltd.

David is the CEO of Global Blue SA. David was previously the Co-CEO of the Virgin Group until 30 June 2013 and his past directorships include Virgin Atlantic Ltd, Virgin Holidays Ltd, Virgin America Inc and Air Asia X. David was also an investment banker for ten years with Goldman Sachs.

A little aviation background there.

2. Josh Bayliss

osh has extensive experience as both an executive and non-executive director of a large number of companies across the Virgin Group globally in all of Virgin’s industry sectors including aviation, financial services, telecoms and media, health and wellness and entertainment.

He has been with the Virgin Group since 2005, previously serving as the Group’s General Counsel before taking on the CEO role in 2011.

3. The other airline experience on the VOz board is the three CEOs of Air NZ, Singair and Etihad.

Certainly a fair bit more aviation experience than then on the QF board. That said, is it making a difference?

I'm with Jaba on this one. I'd prefer a brand and marketing person (who at least understands the important of 'the product') than a mergers and acquisition person who just sees the $$$$.

[-438]

Joyce clearly doesn't want anyone with sound airline operational knowledge on his board as they may point out his and other board members lack of knowledge.
I also have no problem with Sampsons inclusion, I just have a problem with the entire makeup of the board. I don't expect a pilot or an engineer on the board, just at least one (preferably more) credible person(s) from a successful aviation background with significant operational knowledge.
I would also expect persons with significant accounting/banking & law experience, however we seem a little top heavy in these fields.

Mostly however, ditch the kool aid.
Independant, knowledgeable & passionate persons with Qantas' best interests at heart (not personal wealth).
Is this too much to ask?
Hopefully Sampson can prove to be this.

[Arnold E]

Hang on Keg, the examples you have quoted are executive roles, next year you will be able to quote the man in question as well. Doesn't mean they have any more operational experience. If you as an employee and pilot are happy with that, then there is really nothing more to say. :)

[Keg]

G'day Arnold E. I didn't make a comment one way or another as to whether I was happy. These things are so far above my ability to influence that I don't invest any emotion in them.

I was simply doing a comparison between the two majors in Australia. One has more aviation experience on the board than the other. Whether others see value in the 'experience' of the VOz board is for them to determine. I'm not commenting on it at all. :ok: Other fish to fry for me at the moment! :}

[PW1830]

"JETLAG - SA airways in the Andrews era." Interesting read.
summary - SA was brutally murdered by an an American import CEO called Coleman Andrews between 1998 and 2001.
"The foreigner was overpaid scoundrel who ran our airline into the ground, stole its money and scuttled abroad to escape our righteous wrath" Quote from the back cover.
What other americans were gaining their airline experience there between 1998 and 2001?

[Arnold E]

I'm not commenting on it at all. Other fish to fry for me at the moment!

Fair enough, re-reading I see that.:)

[David75]

He may be a spin artist - but from tv appearance is prepared to call challenge others spin as well. May actually keep the CEO in line.


Interestingly the oil price drop may allow the board to come out of the last couple of years of average leadership looking golden. The strategy to flood the market with capacity may pay off if the public keep flying and the air fares don't drop.

[Savage175]

It's all well and good to claim that pilots should fly the planes and the running of the company should be left to the businessmen, but it's an indisputable fact that the smartest men in the room have managed to turn a billion dollar annual profit business into a $2.3 billion dollar loser in just a few short years. This of course has been due to factors outside their control, but now that a small profit might be on the horizon, everyone is once again slapping themselves on the back and congratulating themselves on how their vision has turned the airline around.

So when you write that pilots have no idea about how to run an airline, then I would suggest that they certainly couldn't have done much worse than the current crowd.

[Gas Bags]

Savage....


And you could probably get a part time job as a brain surgeon on the side as well....After all if you can fly a plane you must be smart enough to carry out any other profession in the known world. Get over yourself.


Did you think you were as capable at running a business the size of QF when you were flying rubber dog sh*t out of the far north, hot bedding in a back packer share house in Darwin, living on take away pizza, and drinking chateau cardboard fruity lexia???

[busdriver007]

Gas Bags
A drunk monkey could do a better job than the current mob. Writing all you costs off for the next two years and then saying how smart you are to turn the business around is drawing a long bow but no one in the financial industry and/or media have questioned these moves. Unless the current management buys new fuel efficient aircraft for mainline(where the money is made!) then the company is fatally flawed.

[Keg]

This concept that a pilot should be seen but not heard as if we're unknowing little children is such a poor CRM principle that it needs to be condemned whenever it's sprouted.

We are a group with a pretty high iq (though occasionally outsmart ourselves when it comes to personal finances), grasp big picture concepts pretty readily and often have well developed BS detectors. To suggest that our position of pilots gives us no insight into the manner in which an airline is run- which is often a question more about leadership, change management, communication and emotional intelligence than it is about high finance- is as stupid as suggesting that a pilot must be the only person who can run an airline.

[Gas Bags]

That may all be so but pilots live in a very insulated (the most insulated in my view) section of any given airline, particularly large legacy carriers. IQ and BS detectors are not what it takes to run a large company that has to deal with ALL aspects of a business as opposed to one small section.


I am not advocating that the current management team are doing a good or bad job, but what qualifies a pilot to make claim to being able to run an airline better than others??? You don't need a university degree to be a pilot.You don't need any qualification to become a pilot. You just need money, tenacity, and perhaps both.


CRM is an interesting concept to raise.....Wasn't that born out of you guys blindly believing that because you are a captain only your opinion counted and god forbid a lesser human being should question your judgement. Interesting that you need to be trained to even master a simple thing like communication and taking into account others opinions and views.


Stick to flying them......

[newsensation]

just added another to my ignore list

[Keg]

CRM is an interesting concept to raise.....Wasn't that born out of you guys blindly believing that because you are a captain only your opinion counted and god forbid a lesser human being should question your judgement. Interesting that you need to be trained to even master a simple thing like communication and taking into account others opinions and views.

I guess using your analogy anyone who has done an MBA must be a complete moron. Wasn't that sort of course born out of managers having no freaking idea how to manage? :ugh: :rolleyes:

I guess you've shown nicely how little you know of CRM as well.. and learning... and how cultures have changed over the years.

Agree with newsensation.

[tipsy2]

Based on Gas Bags post we had better get rid Mark Binskin and the RAAF heirachy 'cos most of them are pilots.

Whilst we are at it we might as well clear our Army 'cos their heirachy are all soldiers.

And then there is the Navy.......................

But then again there are some complete idiots in civvy street with MBA's.

tipsy
Who failed plasticine and had to sit a supp during recess.:O

[busdriver007]

Most Airlines were created by Pilots and Engineers and quite successfully operated for years(Cathay, Qantas, ANZ and American to name a few). Unfortunately for American and all the US larger carriers they were taken over by MBA heros or Financial Engineers and guess what 10 went bankrupt. Gas Bags is another Wannabe. Ignore him!

[Savage175]

Gas Bags

And you could probably get a part time job as a brain surgeon on the side as well

Well I certainly wouldn't be getting much work from you.

I was alluding to the fact that the MBA brigade weren't exactly covering themselves with glory, but yes I do think that some technical/industry experience input on the board would be beneficial.

Just because you are incapable of gaining a command, or comprehending a basic paragraph, does not mean all pilots are similarly unintelligent.

[Troo believer]

I know for a fact it was a pilot that pushed to buy 777s for QF but the dickheads didn't agree and even Dixon admits his mistake. Who started and ran the airline for about 65 years? A pilot. Who started Cathay? A pilot. Who started KLM? A pilot. Most of the **** in Qantas we could see happening way before the blunts even knew what day it was. Which group has the most skin in the game? Pilots. I know pilots whom are Doctors ,Lawyers, Pharmacists, Engineers by the hundreds, Mathematicians, even a bloke with a PhD in Physics, so don't ever believe some tosser in management knows more cause generally they don't.

[tipsy2]

Gas Bag, let me suggest some reading for you.

For starters I suggest you look up the biographies and histories of:
Charles Lindberg
Sir Charles Kingsford Smith
Sir Reginald Ansett
Sir Robert Law-Smith
Frank Ball
Sir Frederick Scherger
Horrie Miller
Bobby Gibbes
Sir Dennis Buchanan
Sydney Hugh de Kantzow
Roy Clinton Farrell

That'll do for a start but there are many more once you've read and learned something from that lot.

tipsy.:rolleyes:

[Gas Bags]

My posts above were written as an experiment to see what kind of response they would generate with reference to a pilots ability to run a major airline.


In the 7 responses immediately following there are:


2 people choose to ignore me from now on, I am branded as unintelligent, I have failed plasticine class at kindy, pilots have the most skin in the game (forget the many other thousands of people that make an airline work - back to that insulated bubble I was talking about earlier), I am a wannabe who cant get a command, and so on.


And all that from the people who think they should be running a multi billion dollar company....


It is a big difference starting your own airline from scratch as a pilot and learning the way to run it along the journey, from simply being an airline pilot and jumping in the deep end to steer the QANTAS ship 90 odd years after it was founded.

[Keg]

Yeah, because how I interact with an internet troll has a direct correlation with how I run an executive team. You really are just making up stuff as you go along!

[porch monkey]

Experiment???:rolleyes::rolleyes: Fess up dude, you got called out and you have.....Nothing!!!!

[73to91]

Oldies but goodies.

MBA

Mostly Bloody Awful and
Management By Accident :}

[tipsy2]

MBA=Master Bullsh1t Artist.

tipsy:D

[Pinky the pilot]

What Keg said in his last two posts.:ok::ok:

And tipsy2 in his second last post makes a very valid point I should think.

[Compylot]

Girls please..

I know that some of you think you have all the solutions to every problem your airline faces, all gleaned from the fantastically diverse and wide ranging role that you perform within your company.

It has been proven that the perceived ability of ones own solutions to a current airlines woes is proportional to their length of service, amount of posts on pprune and also to the amount of 'red' one has consumed in an attempt to be seen as cultured and intelligent. (because we all know bogans, I mean Jetstar passengers, don't drink red!)

So, while it may seem like nothing short of a massive mistake to appoint such an obverse aviation heathen to the Qantas board, rest assured that the people who make these decisions perhaps drink a bottle or two of red of higher quality than that which you may find in the Dan Murphy's discount bin.

Now, don't you have some simulator study to concentrate on?

[cattletruck]

rest assured that the people who make these decisions perhaps drink a bottle or two of red of higher quality than that which you may find in the Dan Murphy's discount bin.

Actually, I would have used the term bunch of bum feelers to describe that lot.

[Boney]

Comply

I don't think anyone posting on this thread is seriously suggesting that Pilots have all the answers or that a Pilot should be on the board. That is ridiculous.

However, I believe people are dismayed by the many non airline related experience people that have graced the board, particularly over the last 15 years.

Peter Cosgrove was on the board since 2005 I think and left recently to become the Governor General. I find it hard to figure out anything that he could have provided to the board that would have been of any value. No wonder he hung around for nearly a decade with his snout in the trough.

Todd Samson may work out OK. Being from a marketing background, he will have a very strong radar for seeing/hearing bull$hit and being able to create some for Q's benefit. But unfortunately, his skills may only be properly utilised if he were joining a board that actually had deep airline experience.

"What's a triple seven, is that the size of our next bonus and how many zero's are on the end of it?"

[neville_nobody]

That may all be so but pilots live in a very insulated (the most insulated in my view) section of any given airline, particularly large legacy carriers. IQ and BS detectors are not what it takes to run a large company that has to deal with ALL aspects of a business as opposed to one small section.

Except that it's the ONLY department that actually generates the main stream of income. All other departments are secondary to flight ops. Flights stops, so does your airline.

Problem in airline management these days is that no flightops people get senior management in any airline and people from other departments end up pushing their own barrows which has NOTHING to do with your core business.

[c100driver]

Except that it's the ONLY department that actually generates the main stream of income. All other departments are secondary to flight ops. Flights stops, so does your airline.

I know what you are trying to imply by talking "departments" but, Flight Operations is the department that delivers the base product (a seat from point A to point B). Flight Operations Departments are alway a "cost" on a ledger!

If the marketing and sales department cannot deliver enough customers at a price that revenue is greater than the costs your airline will also stop, it will just take a little longer. If your customer service is less that what the customer expects for the price of the seat paid then your airline will wither and die a slow painful death. Every department is co-dependant on the other.

IMHO Having someone with a good marketing background is good for the future of QF because in my experience they are ones that ask the hard questions of "what are we trying to sell" and "what are we trying to be"?

What is QF; "cheap and cheerful JetStar" or "quality full service Qantas". That is the real question that the QF board needs to answer. At the moment they are neither and are being picked off at both ends by the likes of Tiger, Air Asia, Lion at the LCC end by SQ, Emirates, Qatar at the high end.

MBA v Ops Experience
The MBA usually has the ability to analyse and develop the answer to the question but does not know what the question should be!
However the Ops experience knows the question that should be asked but usually does not have the skill to properly analyse or develop the answer.

[-438]

To suggest Pilots are insulated in their role in an airline is either a wind up or shows a complete lack of understanding of the day to day job.
Whilst pilots may not know what happens in the ivory towers, the opposite is true at the coal face.
Hard for many to understand but airlines make money flying passengers & freight.
Pilots interact with all facets of the money making part of the business on a daily basis. It's a pity management do not.
A typical day has the Captain speaking directly with airport managers, engineers, flight planners, Customer Service Managers, cabin crew, passengers, baggage & freight loaders, ATC, dispatchers, refuellers etc.
Generally anything of consequence to a flight will be relayed to the flight crew.
The visibility of the organisation from an operational perspective from the flight crew should not be underestimated.
Senior management could learn much from spending the day following a crew around the network.

[Oriana]

Often-times, the pilots are the ones that unravel the cluster-fcuk that the bean counters created on a good looking spreadsheet.

BTW, Lufthansa has pilot and engineer members on their board.

[Popgun]

Senior management could learn much from spending the day following a crew around the network.

Its a VERY basic concept. Get out of the ivory tower, get out to the pointy end with the front line troops and observe in real time the core business. Whether on the flight deck, in the cabin, in the terminals or in the hangar etc...

No matter what the service industry, nothing substitutes for removing potentially sycophantic layers of mid and low-level management filters by visiting the coal face, unannounced, every once in a while.

In a previous company, it was done every 3 - 4 months. In the 5 years with my current employer I have never seen it (nor heard of it) ever happen.

And when there IS notice of a senior management visit, for say a meeting, then all the troops are deployed to make sure everything looks well oiled, and spick and span in the same way that the main street in a dusty, run-down country town will be spruced up to welcome the Queen! :yuk:

PG

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Compylot, I don't remember reading any post here suggesting a pilots only board is the answer, but I think it's sufficient to say a board lacking any "coal face" experience is not the answer either.

We merely lament the decay of our airline at the hands of a bunch of chaps who are there to pillage and nothing else. Even more galling is the fact that it's not even good business! You don't need an MBA to know that.

I know, don't feed the trolls.........don't feed the trolls

[Rudder Sir]

There's room for marketing experts on an airline board, even if they have no specific aviation experience. What is the key point of difference between Air NZ and Qantas? Marketing!

This guy is incredibly smart and has his finger on the pulse of modern business practice. He's not just a salesman (as some have stated), he's an ethical business executive who understands the need for sound corporate governance.

It's a very good move for Qantas.

[SeeBee]

No Rudder Sir, you have missed the point entirely. ANZ is different to QF because of the basic strategy. The low cost was brought back to mainline, the fleet acquisition plan was clearly defined and the core business was adhered to rigidly. I'm sure marketing played a part but without the afore mentioned points, it would not have been so successful. Please go and learn some history!

Have fun.

[V-Jet]

More importantly, EVERYONE at ANZ knows they work for ANZ, the national flag carrier of New Zealand.


I don't know if the QF Board is capable of answering exactly who they work for and what the company actually does. Senior management certainly can't...


A pretty basic question that most Company's employees know instantly. Who do we work for and what do we do?

[Rudder Sir]

ANZ is different to QF because of the basic strategy.

Yes, a strategy that has its roots in marketing and brand management. My point stands, but thanks for the history lesson.

Seeing as we are trading helpful advice - perhaps you could benefit from finding out what marketing actually is.

[Keg]

Marketing and brand management means nothing without knowing what the hell it is you are and what you do to start off with.

I'd argue that Qantas is sometimes excellent at marketing and brand management but that they've struggled at times over the last decade to work out the first two points of who they are and what they do. In fact on occasions they've been so focussed on 'the brand' and how that's marketed that perhaps they'd forgotten at those times that they need to deliver 'a product' that underpins the brand. That's the misses in marketing over the last decade even when they've been excellent. They've been marketing something which hasn't been backed up by 'the product'. I'd argue that the two previous campaigns to the most recent one are excellent examples of the issue of not knowing how you are and what you do.

Anyway, back to the books.

[Rudder Sir]

Fair enough Keg, but what I was really getting at is that all that stuff about who you are and what you do IS essentially the 'product' and therefore, marketing. I.e. it's understanding your customer base and devising a value proposition that's commercially viable.

I think maybe marketing gets mistaken for advertising sometimes? It's really the function at the root of how you choose to run an airline.

[Jetsbest]

I get what you're saying Rudder and I think Todd Sampson could be good for QF.

As for the schism between the QF board and employees in general, and pilots in particular here, I know where the derision started.:rolleyes:

In the past few years there has been little from 'the top' but disingenuous and misleading spin along with a refusal to answer valid and logical questions about obvious flaws in the public pronouncements about QF-group segments' products/fleet/profitability/efficiency/etc...(except when confronted by the inconvenient reality that pilot experience, training and proficiency saved QF's bacon...again; see QF32/72/etc)

So, the pilots aren't perfect and come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and abilities, but good leadership could have enunciated the challenges and plans while bringing a willing group of participants along for the ride in 'the transformation'. Evidently though, 'the facts' could neither speak for themselves nor bear closer scrutiny in persuading minds, and so the Board chose 'war'.:ugh:

Honestly, there was a better way. The 'Koolaid' still doesn't taste any better now that the rhetoric is changing and AJ etc stand to make, after a creative and arbitrary pay freeze, many millions in bonuses from a deferred share bonus scheme. Are the public are supposed to applaud their integrity?:*

[Compylot]

Somehow I don't think that Todd Samson has been employed for his opinion on what engines are best suited for the A320 NEO or 737 MAX.

We can all wax lyrical about how well these marvelous pioneers of yesteryear did such an outstanding job of creating great legacy Airlines, but please..
Charles Lindberg
Sir Charles Kingsford Smith
Sir Reginald Ansett
Sir Robert Law-Smith
Frank Ball
Sir Frederick Scherger
Horrie Miller
Bobby Gibbes
Sir Dennis Buchanan
Sydney Hugh de Kantzow
Roy Clinton Farrell


...with the greatest of respect to all these fine people, (how many are still even alive?) their experience in the cockpit during their day and in their time of course meant they were very effective leaders who no doubt contributed immensely to the success of the airline they were involved with... back in 1972.

Lets fast forward to 2015 and in this day and age, to expect that pilots, and only pilots, have the knowledge, experience, fortitude and experience to bring the best intelligent decisions at a board room level smacks of ignorance and ego.

A typical day has the Captain speaking directly with airport managers, engineers, flight planners, Customer Service Managers, cabin crew, passengers, baggage & freight loaders, ATC, dispatchers, refuellers etc.

Does it? Even as an FO I don't see Captains interacting this much with such a wide variety of airport staff. In fact I see Captains caring more about their social media status updates than their passengers and cabin crew...

It's a job.

One that has become highly automated, semi skilled and really not that hard :rolleyes: (or important)

There.

[dr dre]

It's a job.

One that has become highly automated, semi skilled and really not that hard (or important)


Wow compylot, that's very inconsistent with you previous posts :)

Prestige, wearing a uniform, telling girls what you do for a living, the view!


We provide precise, intelligent and robust applications of the required procedures and when it comes down to it this is what provides the best practice and safest outcome.

As a professional aircrew member my number one responsibility rests with the safe carriage of my fare paying passengers.


It is nothing short of an attack on the professional and moral ethics that we have all strived to achieve through many thousands of hours of hard work, study and sacrifice.


Please don't be too harsh, as pilots we are required to make quick, no nonsense decisions in minimum time. We need to be fast at weighing up the facts and forming a response which can be impulsive at times.


It is called command decision making and is the cornerstone of all effective commercial pilots.

Please Compylot, if your going to troll, at least be consistent!

[Rudder Sir]

Some interesting points of view.

Just to clarify, I think it's absolutely important to have pilots in certain managerial and advisory roles - but as we all know, being a good pilot doesn't necessarily make you a good manager (or vice-versa!).

What I've noticed of late is that many younger pilots recognise the fact that the job is (to borrow a phrase) 'highly automated, semi skilled and really not that hard', and tool themselves with other qualifications that will hopefully allow them to contribute to the airline outside of the flight deck.

[Jetsbest]

Also...

The assertion that;
many younger pilots recognise the fact that the job is (to borrow a phrase) 'highly automated, semi skilled and really not that hard',

... is a common perspective often expressed by "the smartest guys in the room" (not having a go at Rudder Sir), but it is flawed in its inference that piloting could be done by an automaton. (Shut up & just fly the plane you moron!)

Granted, flying has become safer and more reliable with technology, but it's disappointing that some pilots seem to complacently believe that nothing could go wrong on their flights. The evidence says otherwise and, in those cases, there is NO substitute for the highest possible skills and proficiency from pilots!

There is a huge difference between the outcomes of examples like AF447 and US1549, but the more such "easy job" tosh is accepted as fact because it supports cost reductions and industrial agendas, the more de-skilled the pilots of the world will become and there is already plenty of evidence of where that leads.:rolleyes:

Has any of the nay-sayers considered that pilots (like firemen or the peacetime military) are not there for what what they usually do in the day-to-day operation, but rather for what they're supposed to be able to do when the chips are down.:ok:

[Kharon]

The ship had stopped, mid ocean; big problem with the steam power. Captain says I'll pay anyone who can fix it $100. A small, shabby figure appeared on the deck from the bowls of the ship, "I can fix her Skipper" he mumbled. "Go to" says the Skipper. About 5 minutes later there is a mighty clang and the engines rumble into life. The shabby figure reappeared on deck, in his hand a sledge hammer. "How did you do that?" asks the Skipper. "Well" says old mate "I hit a pipe with my hammer".

"A hundred bucks for hitting a pipe" says the boss, "how will I write that into the accounts".

"Easy" says old mate; "you pay me $1.00 for hitting the pipe and $99 for knowing where to hit it"....;)..:D.....

Any monkey can hit a pipe with a big hammer. QED.

[Rudder Sir]

I'm guessing you wouldn't be too impressed by Airbus' plans for single-pilot airliners within 10 years and unmanned (ground controlled) within 20? :E

It's very true that pilots make their money being on hand for when the **** hits the fan, but that doesn't make the day to day operation any less monotonous. There's also the fairly important point that many accidents of late wouldn't have even occurred if not for the pilots' mishandling - not helping our cause to stay relevant!

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here - but surely you can see the argument for fully automated aircraft? The question is, do your QF32s outweigh your AF447s?

[Boney]

Jetsbest

No, Comply's account has not been hacked. If you have watched his/her posts over the years, this person is a complete tool.

[Arnold E]

Easy" says old mate; "you pay me $1.00 for hitting the pipe and $99 for knowing where to hit it"..

Hmmm interesting that story, I once read a similar story about a retired engineer from .....Annset, I think it was, where he was recalled from retirement to fix a problem on a 727, I wondered at the time if it was urban myth. It was a good story but looks like it was just a story.

[dr dre]

I'm guessing you wouldn't be too impressed by Airbus' plans for single-pilot airliners within 10 years and unmanned (ground controlled) within 20?

Where? A google search shows no press release or news article verifying those comments?

If your referring to the ACROSS project, partially funded by Airbus?
A direct quote from their website: Single pilot operations "are not in the scope of ACROSS research and technology developments"
Objectives | Across (http://www.across-fp7.eu/objectives/)

[dr dre]

It's very true that pilots make their money being on hand for when the **** hits the fan, but that doesn't make the day to day operation any less monotonous

I think most pilots really downplay what they do in their jobs. Have a think about it next time you go to work, and think about every time you make a judgement call in your job that an automated system would miss, no matter how small: (Slowing the aircraft early because of an un forecasted tailwind or diverting around cumulus clouds that the weather radar didn't pick up)
For me it would be 40/50 times in an average day.

[Rudder Sir]

Where? A google search shows no press release or news article verifying those comments?

You won't find it published anywhere. Imagine the reaction...

Almost all (if not all) of the judgement calls we make could be done away with by putting the appropriate systems in place. I.e. pilotless aircraft would obviously require a fully-automated ATC system. There's a technological answer to any problem I can conceive of. If the technology isn't up to scratch, it can be developed.

[dr dre]

There's a technological answer to any problem I can conceive of.

If that's the case basicaly any job can be taken over with automation.
We can kiss goodbye to the need for human beings all together!

[Lookleft]

There's a technological answer to any problem I can conceive of. If the technology isn't up to scratch, it can be developed.

Very true but it still has to meet two criteria: is it affordable and is it relevant.

As an example man has been able to fly to and land on the moon since 1969 but moonshots can no longer meet those criteria. Similarly supersonic passenger flight is easy to achieve from a technology point of view but is not affordable and was only relevant to a minority.

Unless pilotless airliners meet the criteria it will not be developed beyond concept stage which is all Airbus are doing at the moment.

[Trent 972]

Rudder Sir said
...If the technology isn't up to scratch, it can be developed.
AIRBUS have already developed a procedural system to mitigate automation inadequacies.
It is called 'Golden Rule #6'.
Unfortunately the dumbing down of manual piloting skills leave people ill equipped to decide when it is appropriate to go 'GR6'.
And to stay on thread, I think Mr. Sampson is a good choice to be a QF board member. I wish him well.

[Soteria]

What about us Chopper boys, are we going to be put out of work as well?

[AEROMEDIC]

Marketing and brand management means nothing without knowing what the hell it is you are and what you do to start off with.

I'd argue that Qantas is sometimes excellent at marketing and brand management but that they've struggled at times over the last decade to work out the first two points of who they are and what they do. In fact on occasions they've been so focussed on 'the brand' and how that's marketed that perhaps they'd forgotten at those times that they need to deliver 'a product' that underpins the brand. That's the misses in marketing over the last decade even when they've been excellent. They've been marketing something which hasn't been backed up by 'the product'. I'd argue that the two previous campaigns to the most recent one are excellent examples of the issue of not knowing how you are and what you do. That's where Sampson comes in, and to get them to recognize where and when that they have lost direction. Having said that, I wonder if this justifies a seat on the board. Why not a contract instead?

[Rudder Sir]

If that's the case basicaly any job can be taken over with automation.
We can kiss goodbye to the need for human beings all together!

I completely agree - I'm just the messenger in this scenario. Good points by all (and sorry for the thread-drift).

You'd think we humans would have learned by now, but we seem to still have this perverse drive to automate ourselves out of existence. I think the main problem is that the people doing the automating are not (generally) the people being put out of work by it.

[IsDon]

I remember, back in 1983, in my year 12 computer science class. We were discussing the likelihood of our proposed careers being overtaken totally by computers. The lecturer was quite convinced that just about every profession we came up with could be done better, and cheaper, by computer. Of course when I offered "pilot" he stated that would be the easiest of all jobs to automate with a computer flying a pilotless aircraft. My response then was, possibly, but would you and your family fly in one?

Fast forward 30 plus years. Sure we have driverless trains in some countries (one dimensional control, no traffic, no weather issues).

We have some of the major car companies and Google attempting to prove the concept of driverless vehicles (2 dimensions, traffic, variable road conditions, pedestrians with smartphones blindly walking out in front of you etc etc etc.... ) but are still years away from production, and that's just the technical issues. They're finding its a legal minefield to get the things allowed to legally drive on public roads. In fact Audi, one of the pack leaders, have only recently stated that the days of handing over the driving completely to a computer is still years off, and they are concentrating on driver assistance or the foreseeable future.

And you are seriously suggesting that pilotless airliners will be taking over pilots jobs within 10 to 20 years? (3 dimensions, and I won't even begin to list the complexity of operations we deal with every flight. Suffice to say compare the complexity of driving your car to the airport verses that of operating a flight.)

Not a snowflakes chance in hell I'll see it my lifetime, and on the balance of probabilities it won't happen in the lifetime of my four year old either.

[AnQrKa]

"And you are seriously suggesting that pilotless airliners will be taking over pilots jobs within 10 to 20 years?"

It will happen but maybe not as soon as 10 years.

But for sure there could be a reduction in crew numbers as a first step. Do you really need two dudes sitting up front counting waves? Maybe one could be minding the ship while the other one sleeps. Doesnt take more than a jiffy to get them back into the seat if an emergency develops, which rarely happens anyway.

[Rudder Sir]

IsDon, with respect, I think your comparison of fully-automated aircraft with road vehicles is flawed.

It is far easier to fully-automate an airliner than a car for use on public roads, you only have to consider the current state of automation and the operational environment.

I think 10-20 years is way to soon aswell - but that's the timeframe apparently being held by at least some of the Airbus design engineering team. Of course, any initial design would take decades to fully infiltrate the airlines.

[NSEU]

Do you really need two dudes sitting up front counting waves? Maybe one could be minding the ship while the other one sleeps. which rarely happens anyway.

Another management-employed troll... or someone who has no idea how often this automation fails? I've seen 10 pages* of Technical Logbook deferred items on some airlines. Less so, these days, probably because of inventive paperwork management.. or because they've been hidden from view on a computer somewhere :rolleyes:

Doesnt take more than a jiffy to get them back into the seat if an emergency develops,

Tell that to the family and friends of Air France 447 passengers/crew... and, possibly, MAS MH370.

And what happens when the cockpit door automation fails? Or the plane is inverted?

*which the pilots have to read and apply risk management principles to... before they start "counting waves".

[Rudder Sir]

Tell that to the family and friends of Air France 447 passengers/crew... and, possibly, MAS MH370

Ahhhhh, one (possibly two) examples of where no crew would have been better!

Why do people get so hot and bothered about a simple debate? I'd suggest if you can't remove your personal situation from play and remain objective, your judgement is clouded.

[CaptCloudbuster]

I'd like to see a pilotless plane do a max perf TO ex YNWN on a 45 degree day and suffer an eng failure at V1:eek:

Wouldn't like to be a pax on it though:rolleyes:

[Jetsbest]

Huh? In AF447 the automation failed first and then the pilots, perhaps through poor training & skills, failed to resolve the problems & ambiguities. I can't see how the failed automation could have saved itself!

I do agree though that the future will probably find the answers.:ok:

[NSEU]

Huh? In AF447 the automation failed first and then the pilots,

Automation failed? That was part of my argument.

Wasn't it the captain who came from the cabin and eventually figured out what happening (albeit too late)?

Why do people get so hot and bothered about a simple debate?

Because people's lives are concerned (yours, mine). If some passion can't be generated by this, then...???

I'd suggest if you can't remove your personal situation from play and remain objective, your judgement is clouded.

How "clouded" was the A330's judgement?

Getting back to the topic...

Suggestion: Replace airline management with computers

[Rudder Sir]

:ugh: The automation didn't fail on AF447, it responded as it was designed to do in an unreliable air data situation (it was designed knowing that there would be two pilots there to deal with this situation). The crew then forced the aircraft (manually) well outside of its flight envelope.

If AF447 was a fully automated aircraft (which would obviously include automatic handling of a loss of air data situation), it would not have crashed. How is that not obvious?

That's all I'm saying on the matter - talk about frustrating!

[Nigel747]

To think that this thread’s title is “ANOTHER board member for Qantas”.

[AnQrKa]

“Another management-employed troll... or someone who has no idea how often this automation fails? “

Of course, its always much easier to trot out the management troll accusation than actually think about the discussion.

How often does automation fail in your aircraft? What part of the automation are you talking about? What if the auto autopilot trips off in cruise, would a single pilot struggle to cope?

“Tell that to the family and friends of Air France 447 passengers/crew... and, possibly, MAS MH370”

You mean the ones that had TWO pilots in the cockpit. Didn’t work them at all did it?

[plainmaker]

Putting aside the discussion about the core relevancy of whether you need 'airline qualified' board members -those of us who have seen the obligations of Directors change markedly over the years.

There are a number of precedents around where Directors have claimed that they were misinformed when making pivotal decisions about a business and got it wrong. Simple answer, lack of due diligence is no defence.

In concert with the notion that it is a Board's responsibility to implement the shareholder's wishes (simplistic yes I agree) and thereby determine the best strategy, it is management's job to implement and manage the business

Quite a separation of responsibility really.

But applying the due diligence obligation, a Director cannot eschew the notion that they made a decision based on what management told them - they have to make their own independant inquiry as to the efficacy of the information. They rely on auditors for instance for financial assurance, BUT they need to be qualified sufficiently to understand the information (or get other independant advice again) to be able to apply it.

Hence Boards typically have Lawyers and Accountants and other professionals well represented to review and challenge if necessary the information provided by management. That is just a factor of modern business (and the Corporations Law).

Perhaps given the meteoric rise of Ms Worth the Board may have determined that they needed someone qualified to challenge the stuff she is passing up. Enter Mr Sampson.

Or am I ascribing too much competency to the Board about assessing their own knowledge risks! :D

[rodchucker]

Suspect competence at board level is extremely limited as demonstrated by many years of bad decisions that have not been challenged and Execs going mostly unchallenged unless they disagree with CEO and then get booted out. This is an ideological club that alienates customers,staff and public at large.anyone invited into the tent will be expected to fall into line or be silent so don't expect any radical changes with any new appointments until there are major changes at the top.
Any short term share price gain is only illusionary and likely a result of selective briefings designed to prop up strategy.
The more it changes the more it stays the same.

[ramius315]

If AF447 was a fully automated aircraft (which would obviously include automatic handling of a loss of air data situation), it would not have crashed.

Possibly the most ignorant statement I have ever read. Anywhere.

[Rudder Sir]

Possibly the most ignorant statement I have ever read. Anywhere.

Okay, I'll bite - that's a very helpful analysis, but perhaps you could elaborate?

You're telling me that if an aircraft was designed to do what pilots are supposed to do in this situation (maintain an appropriate attitude and thrust setting until air data can be restored) the outcome would not have been different? I'd really like to hear how someone who seems to think themselves less ignorant (or much less ignorant) than I comes up with that rationale!

I have to wonder if you've even thought about the point in question, or if you've just seen an argument coming from an angle you don't like and got your back up.

[Keg]

Automation would have dealt with QF72 how? It was the automation that had them pitching nose down toward the ground.

Automation would have assisted with the QF30 how? When the side blew out the aeroplane there were no autopilots left and multiple other issues.

When a 744 on descent into BKK lost all electrics in late 2007, early 2008, automation would have helped how exactly?

How would automation have dealt with the QF32?

Your blind belief in the benefits of automation is admirable but I can count 4 hull losses for Qantas within the last 7 years had it not been for pilots on board simply because the automation wasn't up to scratch. The way I see it, Pilots 4: Automation 0.... and that's just the serious issues. I've had automation decide not to follow the flight planned track requiring manual intervention. It took multiple resets of systems and some creative thinking to get it to do what it was supposed to do. I'm sure many of us can think if multiple examples where we've managed the lack of automation response. Sure, automation has also saved some of us from time to time which just goes to show that NO ONE SYSTEM IS PERFECT.

So how about we cease the pissing contest about how awesome automation is. Realise that it's goal is to assist us to do things that we can't do as well and clear our minds to manage things that the automation simply doesn't consider...... like what to do when the automation goes cactus.

[Rudder Sir]

Not sure if that was aimed at me, Keg, but I've never said I'm in support of fully automated aircraft - in fact, I'm a Boeing rather than Airbus man given the choice, but that doesn't stop me weighing up the merits and trying to see the debate from all angles.

As I said in an earlier post, part of the automation argument is a balance of risks - how you weight your QF32s (aircraft saved by the pilots) against your AF447s (aircraft destroyed by the pilots).

The other issue frustrating me here is that many seem to be using the current state of the art in making a call, rather than understanding that for fully automated aircraft to exist, you'd have to have far greater redundancy within the automation, as you don't have pilots to fall back on.

I don't think we'll see fully automated aircraft or even single pilot airliners this century, but I'm very interested in making sure I understand the debate as like most on here, my future depends on it!

[Keg]

My apologies if I construed your comments to be anything but a heartfelt defence for a necessary increase in the automation of an aircraft and a decrease in the human interaction. Your defence that automation for AF447 could have saved the day (notwithstanding the acknowledged pilot errors of the day) ignores the reality of dealing with an aeroplane with no accurate sources of data and perhaps clouded my perception of your intent that automation actually ISN'T all it's cracked up to be.

Perhaps it's wading through too many Airbus manuals at the moment that is clouding my judgement! :suspect:

[Rudder Sir]

Your defence that automation for AF447 could have saved the day

I was more meaning that the absence of pilots could have saved the day.

I don't accept that it's difficult to program an aircraft to revert to basic attitude flying when there's a pitot/static problem, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - my hijacking of this thread has gone on long enough - apologies to those wanting to discuss the Qantas board. :O

[Keg]

I don't accept that it's difficult to program an aircraft to revert to basic attitude flying when there's a pitot/static problem,

Fair dinkum are you kidding? And then what? The aeroplane doesn't know where it is, what it's doing, what speed it's doing, or where it needs to go! It doesn't know the quickest way out of the environment it's in. It doesn't know what other traffic is around, it doesn't know where the nearest airport is, it doesn't know whether the conditions are suitable for it to go there anyway.

Automation is a tool and like the hammer in the previous analogy of paying the engineer $1 to hit the engine and $99 to know where to hit it. Automation is just a really complicated hammer that pilots use to hit the problem to solve it. Air France were derelict in ensuring that their crew weren't properly trained in how to use it. You're being derelict in thinking that the tool can do the job always intended for the person doing the thinking.

[nestorkelly508]

But dont you think its still a good idea of having him the board member.. Because of his skills