Will Virgin Blue Ever Operate Internationally? [Archive]

Pete Conrad

25th May 2003, 10:55

You can see whats going to happen, and it's been said all along, however denied by the people in QF who have the rose coloured goggles on too tight.

That is that SIA will not start a domestic operation here on their own, however they will come in via a stake in VB. There will be no third airline, possibly two and a half airlines. SIA will end up with an open skies agreement, regardless of how hard Geoff Dixon squeals to John Howard

SIA will end up operating from Australia to the USA and beyond, they cannot expand out of the Singapore hub no more, they need Australia to expand and thats been the game plan for over 15 years.

All the bleating by Geoff Dixon about SIA not coming here is just that - bleating, it's a tactic used to try and get the other party to declare their hand early and show the market what they are going to do either way. It's failed to work on SIA who have neither confirmed or denied they are looking at Australia, and the push by QF to sure up the AirNZ deal, use force on the government to stop an open skies agreement, try to put airlines lke REX out of business, who remember are 42% Singaporean owned now is a big testament to the fact that QF are worried that an inevitable SIA arrival is going to happen via a stake in VB.

You can all sit back and deny that SIA are going to come here and claim that they would be here by now if they were serious, well, they are serious and it's been shown that they are waiting for all the i's to be dotted and the t's crossed this time round instead of the mistakes thet made in the past.

The new boss of SIA said it himself in the Straights Times, quote, " we are not looking at joining with QF, any fantasy of a stake in QF by SIA is a fantasy in Geoff Dixon's head only".

Three Bars

25th May 2003, 14:34

I continue to be surprised by the people on this forum who slaver over the idea of Qantas being given a going over by a new entrant to the Australian market.

In such tough financial times for airlines, why would any Australian favour the prospect of a new entrant possibly further endangering the finacial position of the airline that employs more Australians than any other. Some people here seem to have such an anti-Qantas bias that they would rather see the Singaporeans or the British (via the Branson owned half of VB) profit in Australia to the expense of Qantas.

Australia has long-entertained the idea of a free-skies policy here. In this regard, I think that we would be unique, as we would be prepared to erode the position of a major employer of Australians so that the fare-paying public can travel for a few less dollars on their ticket price. If governments are so disposed to this point of view, why don't they get their hands out of the till and lower the ridiculous amount of taxes that the travelling public have to pay for thier tickets.

Johhny Utah

26th May 2003, 09:04

Pete Conrad - what is with your fascination with SQ? Given all of the drama & grief caused by Ansett going under, I fail to see how it would be good for Australia to have an entirely overseas owned, government monopoly come in to Australia and take away jobs from some of the 30,000 peope that are employed by Qantas. Please feel free to explain to me how this would be a benefit to Australia in any way. Much like Three bars, I am constantly amazed by everyone trying to cut down the local airline in favor of an overseas entrant. Somehow I doubt that if Singapore do eventually come in that they will be paying huge money for local drivers - especially given the wage precedent set by the arrival of Virgin Blue.

As for all of your talk regarding SQ - perhap[s they won't be involved as much as you have suggested. News reports this morning on Ch 9's "Today Show" suggested that Emirates may be coming to Australia in more force & possibly even flying Trans Tasman in the not too distant future. I'd be interested to see how this fits in with your 'ideal scenario' of Singapore dominating the skies over Australia. I'm not saying that it is a definite (it was a commercial TV station after all....) but it might force a bit of a rethink amongst some of the players in the region...

Longhauler

26th May 2003, 11:30

Get knocked back on the QF application did we PC?

Pete Conrad

1st Jun 2003, 12:43

J.Utah, your idea of Emirates coming here in greater numbers was foiled this week by the Minister for Qantas Anderson canning the Emirates group application to increase flights to Sydney, so your wrong on that count.

Long hauller, typical a comment from a QF employee who suffers from head in ass syndrome.No in fact, I have the pleasure of not working for QF, but as I neither visit these boards regularly enough and couldn't be bothered even arguing about the "heroic" virtues of working for QF, then I won't bother with you.

All I say is whats going to happen from what I hear in Singapore, and the STAR meeting in Washington this week confirmed that. SIA still see aquisitons as a vital part of their expansion. The aquisition that SQ take on in this part of the world, will be part of DJ, and Choong said himself yesterday, they are still looking at starting a domestic operation in Australia. So, read into it what you want, but like I said, it's only you QF employees that frequent these boards and ****e can everybody elses idea's about your airline never having competition here, that is real competition because you are part of a big arrogant airline that does not care about the passengers you carry.

I know I echo the thoughts of most people, bring on a Virgin and SQ tie up, have REX and Alliance as feeders and then we have real competition and real job opportunities here in Australia. If you see that as anti QF, thats your problem, I don't but at the end of the day I could care less.

Enjoy your market share while you have it QF, it aint going to last forever.

blueloo

1st Jun 2003, 13:02

Pete, when you woke up this morning, did you have the warts on the tip of your penis removed with dry ice, or a pair of rusty pliers?

:} :} :ok:

Johhny Utah

1st Jun 2003, 21:15

Pete Conrad - before you go letting everyone else know how wrong they are, perhaps you might like to test your verbal comprehension with these select passages regarding Emirates increasing its flights to Australia:
The Australian government said on Thursday it had given Emirates airline [EMAIR.UL] approval to boost its flight numbers between Dubai and Australia by almost 50 percent -- but not from the country's main gateway, Sydney. ...a memorandum of understanding (MOU) had been signed with Dubai-based Emirates, increasing the number of its flights to Dubai from Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and Brisbane to 44 a week from 30.
Dubai-based Emirates would also be able to operate beyond Australia to any two points in New Zealand for the first time, boosting competition on the trans-Tasman market as regulators assess a proposed alliance between Qantas and Air New Zealand .

I don't believe I ever stated that Emirates would be coming in greater numbers to Sydney - just that they were planning on increasing numbers to Australia. As for Emirates flying the Tasman - that sounds as if it has already been signed off.

John Anderson the 'Minister for Qantas' - what a load of BS. If he was in the pocket of QF management to the extent that has been suggested on here, why would Australia be negotiating open sky agreements with any other nation? Surely he'd be protecting QF above the benefit of joe average to have fractionally cheaper airline seats? :confused:

I'd love to hear some sort of proposed timeline for SQ's introduction of domestic services. As for there being a huge amount of new jobs available as a result of a wholly overseas owned carrier coming into an already well catered to market - I fail to see it happening. I'd suggest that Virgin are already providing 'real competition' in most segments, and are certainly providing 'real opportunities' for guys to get some jet time/get back home to Oz. As a guess, I'd hardly suggest that the average Australian would be overjoyed at the thought of a Singapore - DJ tie up - I might even go so far as to suggest that they couldn't give a stuff, as long as they can get where they're going...

Just to clarify - I DO see any possible introduction of an overseas carrier here as a threat to Qantas - and the 30,000 odd Australians it employs directly, plus the many thousands more who would be indirectly affected. How these people & the Australian economy would benefit from SQ's arrival is hard for me to understand - I'd be delighted to see your workings though... We've only just been through the Ansett disaster - are you suggesting that we deserve another one like it to see QF 'get what's been coming to it' - is that where your motivation truly lies...?

Just my thoughts...

Anti Skid On

2nd Jun 2003, 07:47

To answer the question - with my answer (and another question) - probably no. If you mean international as Trans-tasman, then probably yes, if you mean into SE Asia, than no.

Firstly Virgin Blue are not following the business model of other low cost ops elsewhere in the world, where slots are taken in airports that are not the main hubs, e.g. Ryanair flying from Liverpool and 'London Luton' to Frankfurt Hann (alegedly miles away from the real Frankfurt Main) and the like. Southwest, in the states, has a similar model, no hubs, just point to point. You can do this when you have the volumes of travellers. Freedom Air is attempting to do and Easyjet/Southwest hybrid operating from Hamilton and Palmerston North to large Aussie ports, but in the NZ scenario, there is not the population base to sustain this - now if someone made Whenuapai into a civil airport and the Nimby's allowed it to happen, this could all change, because they'd have 1/3 of the population of NZ in their backyard. It is probably worth noting too that where others have gone 'low cost' and not followed the proven model of Ryanair, Easyjet and Southwest, they have often gone down the pan (in Europe Debonair, Buzz, etc...)

Coming back to the Emirates bit. I was taken aback when I heard that they were offered permission to do Trans-tasman flights on the news and on Pprune. It is only recently that there was a thread on Emirates and the ops of their new A340-600's (sorry have looked and can't find it!). I had a PM from one of their guys re. this. Emirates intention is to operate DUB to AKL direct, no tech stop and not via Aussie. It may be the case that the direct routing will be say x 2 per week and they will be running via SYD or BNE (actually I'd like to see another op go via PER - the amount of South African's over here now would generate a fair amount of business on this route) and use these for crew/aircraft positioning.

As for trans-pacific - United recently pulled out, the Air NZ SYD-LAX is being canned, so I cannot see Virgin looking at this one either.

oldhasbeen

2nd Jun 2003, 11:24

Jo berg to Aus via DXB--a bit like going Syd to Tokyo via LA:ouch:

Anti Skid On

2nd Jun 2003, 19:29

I was meaning AKL - PER - JNB, not via Dubai. Services to PER are somewhat limited (possibly due to loadings) Most South Africans I know go via AKL - SYD - PER - JNB

ferris

2nd Jun 2003, 19:48

I think you have half the picture and have made a few incorrect assumptions thereafter.
Who do you mean will do the AKL-PER-JNB route? It wont be EK.
EK will go non-stop DXB-MEL and SYD later this year. The oz govt. decision to only allow double dailies to MEL, and PER (SYD remains once daily), means that the capacity planned for the second SYD daily can be used elsewhere. That gives the option of direct AKL. I wouldn't bank on that being a daily, but bear in mind the whole EK philosophy revolves around DXB being the hub.
Also, just announced in the press here is free accomm in PER when customers are travelling on to MEL, SYD and BNE ??? (previously, the connections didn't work for on-travelling; you arrive after the red-eye has left). The implication being that EK could use PER as their oz hub?
The plot thickens.

thumpa

3rd Jun 2003, 06:21

Fanky Franky Bonnan its you

You have a new name Pete Conrad. Your anti-Qantas stance and Singaporean bias has been missed here. Welcome to PPRUNE.

Why elese would you want a foreign entrant into Australia. Jobs Jobs Jobs. All the pro Singaporean advocaters missed out on Qantas. Simple

Have a nice Day:ok:

Pete Conrad

3rd Jun 2003, 09:44

See the little red guy that is attached. I just love stirring you guys up. It's only you guys that work at QF that get so defensive about this stuff. Everybody else who works for other airlines just can't wait for the day that there are more opportunities for jobs and decent competition created by an SQ,DJ,REX tie up.

I'm not condoning anybody lose a job, but as was told to MANY, if not all the ex-AN group employees - "it's business, so get over it"

When the shoe has the potential to rest on the other foot it's interesting to see the arrogance from you QF people come to the forefront.

Get over it, just accept the fact that one day your the pidgeon, the next the statue.

I still keep saying it, and I know alot agree, bring on the proposed alliance of the three airlines above.

Anti Skid On

3rd Jun 2003, 12:19

OK - lets try this again. I never said EK would do JNB - PER - AKL - what I meant was it would make sense if EK did DBX - PER - AKL, as this is a route that is not currently offered - it would suit the backpackers and also the PER - AKL would possibly allow a quick connection to JNB with SAA.

EK are, according to info. here, planning to do AKL (from DBX) WITHOUT a tech stop, hence why I questioned the news re. them planning to operate trans-Tasman (and possibly be a competitor against Virgin). Going back to earlier too, my feelings are that Virgin may consider trans-Tasman, but won't do long haul - it just doesn't fit the business model.

Added on edit...
First A340-500's arrive in September and start Syd in October. As we receive more (about 2 a month) we will add new destinations. New York and San Fran are confirmed. Hot rumor here is that a big announcement will be forthcoming at the Paris air show. We need two aircraft to service any one destination with daily frequency so expect sizable order.
New destinations for the 340 include Bne and Mel to compete with everybody elses one stop to Europe. Akl is possibly soon, as Ek Holidays have been pushing NZ in their brochures for about a year. Seems like that has in the past led to a new destination.

and in a seperate PM

The whole point of the 340-500 is to avoid the tech stop. Range is 16hrs+.

ferris

3rd Jun 2003, 13:40

Your post now makes sense. Everything in your pm's looks right, as well. Negotiating for the trans-tansman rights just doesn't seem to make sense. They did it, so they must want to use them! Maybe one of the two dailies will still be on the 777, which will go on to nz?
The new a/c order is not exactly secret- I think it's the numbers that will blow people away. Something like 69 large jets !!! They have been very successful at financing with bond issues, so the money isn't a problem. Might create a few more opportunities for some aussies to crew them!! They are talking 200 aircraft by 2010.

Pete Conrad: Posting factually incorrect info doesn't wind people up, just makes you look stupid. And how, exactly, do mergers create jobs? Growing the market, new entrants etc create jobs. Mergers, tie-ups etc are done to reduce them. You claim to be interested in more oz jobs, but can't wait for the big Q to become a small q???

Johhny Utah

3rd Jun 2003, 17:57

Pete/Frank - you state that:
Everybody else who works for other airlines just can't wait for the day that there are more opportunities for jobs and decent competition created by an SQ,DJ,REX tie up.
If everyone else is already working for an airline, why would they be excited by the prospect of more jobs created by your mythical merger?

How many more jobs would you like to be available? In the last year both Virgin Blue & Qantas put on substantial numbers of tech crew. Virgin are supposedly about to begin hiring again, and Qantas can't be too far off once the current SARS downturn peters out.

I fail to see how your 'proposed alliance' will create any new jobs at all. Perhaps you are just upset that no one in Australia will employ you, so you are pinning all of your hopes on SQ. :hmm: What happens if all of your dreams come true, but SQ don't employ you - perhaps some other 100% owned foreign entity can come to Australia & teach everyone else how it's done & provide heaps of jobs & competition for everyone - gee, I bet everyone can't wait for that to happen....:rolleyes:

At the end of the day, I guess it all comes down to the sad fact that you are....Un-Australian. :mad:

BigWaz

4th Jun 2003, 11:21

Everyone here seems to be confusing each other with their own bits of a story.
EK will be operating 777-300 to BNE daily. It will arrive early am, spend the day on the ground and then depart late afternoon/early evening. There are no plans for it to carry on to AKL, yet. SYD or MEL are the most likely points for this as it has more room on the tarmac.
You see the reason the BNE service is staying on the tarmac for the day is because the 777-300 will have to be parked up at Gate 86 as there is currently no room for it to taxi past other traffic during the day. When it arrives in the early am, it will more than likely take up gate 86. The next available time for it to taxi is after 3 pm when the last SQ and QF heavies leave. Of course that may change if BAC extend the current taxi way system.

Thankyou for listening to my 20 c worth as irrelevant to Virgin as it is. Tee Hee

PS My prediction is that QF is on its way out. Not totally but enough to upset the staff......HAHAHA. Australian Airline or not, their arrogance will be their un-doing.
:O

ferris

4th Jun 2003, 13:03

No confusion.

Add two and two. EK has negotiated tran-Tasman rights. They are increasing capacity to oz. They will have at least 2 large, expensive aeroplanes sitting on the ground all day, every day unless they can be employedsomehow . Are you thinking what I'm thinking B1? I am B2.

Relevance to DJ (and QF)? Certainly. Going to make it an awful lot harder for DJ to go to trans-Tasman (if, indeed, they ever were). Going to make it an awful lot easier for QF to convince the ACCC that there will be competition and therefor allow the merger .

Gnadenburg

4th Jun 2003, 13:32

Johnny Utah

You are falling into a protectionist trap. Nobody cares if you lose your job . Or if your promotion is stalled due a new and exciting airline entering the scene. Australians will flock to the new entity with its fancy advertising etc.

Ansett was an icon too. 16000 jobs.

Un-Australian? Well what about the QF pilot group? Did they go to bat for their AN pilot colleagues?

Many exAN flew on QF contracts and little was done by your group to ensure they got a permament positions. No doubt QF fellows were jumping over themselves feeding on the AN carcus.

I would suggest it was only TJ who displayed an "Australian" attitude. Despite some of his favoured exAN loyal subjects not meeting initial QF psyche profiling, after the initial knockbacks TJ got them in the door. TJ couldn't help everybody, but he managed to help a select few.

Who did the QF pilot group help? Themselves. 800 local pilots on the market but no qualms about recruiting cadets. And now your positions/wages/conditions may be under pressure. You had exAN pilots sitting on your Flight Decks on contracts while direct entry recruiting. You have yourselves contributed to the above mentioned squeezes due contributing to an oversupply.

The 89ers have always said QF pilots looked after themselves. Ringing true?

Just observations Johnny. What do you think? And I am not a bitter QF wannabe as although Australia is the best country in the world to live, it no longer has the best airline positions-VB or junior QF S/O living in Sydney average by world standards.

A thousand highly qualified Australian expat pilots would love to come home at your expense. But I am sure they wouldn't like to see QF pilots "hurt", like many others in the industry, out of malice. Just putting themselves first!

blueloo

4th Jun 2003, 13:51

You sound very bitter actually....

Ah what the heck, a bit of cadet bashing eh, why not ? After all cadets have taken everyones "right" to a job at qantas. What part don't you get? You don't have a right to a job at any institution let alone Qantas. You apply, and the people on the day decide whether your suitable amongst the candidates. Qantas take people from all walks of life - GA, Air Force and yes Cadets.

Please spare me, i can hear the violins.

bitter balance

4th Jun 2003, 13:54

Gnadenburg, just what could Johnny U have done to help you and your colleagues?

Gnadenburg

4th Jun 2003, 14:28

bb

As much as I can do to protect his job now I suppose. But the silence was deafening when AN went down. Again too, when exAN pilots were flying around in QF aircraft and couldn't get permament slots.

I would not wish JU the hardships of retrenchment or lack of promotion but don't feel my sentiments widespread.

blueloo

Yes I love to cadet bash. Guilty as charged.

But bitter about QF no. Just observations. And I was trying to point out that Johnny falling into a trap about people caring for his QF position.

My point was there was 800 pilots on the market and now your conditions under the squeeze due oversupply. Cadets contribute to an oversupply.

How? QF promotion and expansion was at the expense of an AN carcus. Qualified pliots were replaced by cadets Now you have an oversupply and you have QF conditions under the pump. Is there a link?

VB has its own cadet progrramme too. 1000 hour pilots into RHS 737. A smart way to keep conditions down.

The supply and demand of pilots, which is proportional to pay and conditions, takes a battering when experience no longer weighs for anything.

See past my initial dig blueloo.

Capn Laptop

4th Jun 2003, 17:28

If Virgin have any 1000 hr pilots in the RHS it would only be one or two out of 430 odd pilots - not a particularly large percentage.

Gnadenberg - do a bit of research and find out when the people that were in management position in Ansett both before and after the dispute joined - and with what experience.

I think you will be enlightened.

Virgin have a very broad range of experience within its pilot ranks as does QF - the difference is that the most junior VB guy/gal gets to actually pole the aeroplane - thus gaining experience at a different rate to the junior QF pilot.

Johhny Utah

5th Jun 2003, 07:04

Gnadenburg - I can hardly take responsibilty for the management of QF management immendiately post Ansett dispute - at the time I was still slogging away in GA.

However, when I did join some months several months later, it was in a group that was predominantly ex Ansett/Kendell pilots. Much like the 2 courses before, and several courses afterwards.

Given that QF in your opinion stood by & did nothing, I'd be interested to hear how many ex-AN pilots Virgin employed.

You state that:QF promotion and expansion was at the expense of an AN carcus (sic) I believe QF expanded because there was no other carrier in Australia that could cope with the increased numbers, and the fact that they had excess capacity available due to a downturn in international operations.
Many ex AN flew on QF contracts and little was done by your group to ensure they got a permament positions - I think you'll find that all of the ex-contract pilots who passed the selection process are now full time employees of Qantas. Your comments about QF still recruiting cadets are out of the control of the pilot body - perhaps you should address these qualms to senior management, as there's nothing that your average QF pilot could say to change current policy re: cadets.

However, the most intriguing of your stements was this:
The 89ers have always said QF pilots looked after themselves. Ringing true?
As I understand it, the majority of the senior DJ pilots are ex-89ers, who have now all returned home. It is interesting to note that QF pilots are labelled as 'selfish' at the same time that the same pilots, having earned reportedly large salaries overseas, are now returning home to work for far less than the going rate in the industry. Does anyone see the irony in a group of individuals that were forced to leave the country due to a pay dispute now being largely responsible for a dramatic reduction in the earning potential of Australian pilots? And where was the AFAP when this agreement was signed off? I'd suggest that your statements that current Virgin & junior QF earnings are below world standards is a direct indication of this. So who is looking after themselves / being selfish now?

I'd suggest that there are more factors at work than simply Qantas not employing all of the ex-Ansett pilots as a whole. Out of interest, at the last count, how many were still unemployed?

blueloo

5th Jun 2003, 09:03

Personally, if you narrow your intake of people from the groups going into Qantas you will probably get a majority build up of freaks in the company.

If you stopped entrants from the cadet field and air force field, you would be left with the bitter and twisted GA individuals who think that every company owes them a job, because they did the hard yards and have the experience;
If you stopped GA and Cadet intakes, you would be left with the air force psychos and skitso's, who believe that if you didnt train on some high speed jet you know jack :mad: [and if you also dont know the muzzle velocity of a particular type of sub machine gun at 100 yards];
and If you cut out GA and Air Force, leaving the cadets, then well you probably wouldnt have much of an airline.

I think by mixing the intakes QANTAS gets a broader cross section of pilots. Luckily the airline isnt made up entirely of complete whinging nutters a few of which are found on Pprune :} :} :}

Pete Conrad

6th Jun 2003, 13:33

J.Utah - Are all the Australian people who flew on Virgin when they started here anti-Australian? because they flew on a 100% foreign owned airline. Is any passenger that flies on any airline other than QF anti-Australian?

In your eyes, is any Australian who expresses a desire to see fair and equitable competition in Australian skies un-Australian?

Whether you like it or not, SQ will eventually end up in Australia in some way shape or form.

Whether you like it or not, SQ will most likely tie up with Virgin.

Whether you like it or not, SQ and Virgin will end up with REX as it's regional feed.

Have you seen the REX and Virgin tie up in the last few days? whether you like it or not the writing is pretty much on the wall for a solid,lean well managed domestic carrier with regional feed here to compete with QF within the next few years.

Call me what you want, the fact remains that people blinded by rose coloured glasses, and it's usually people that work in QF who just won't accept that you will eventually have to compete again that get on here and shoot everybody else down who expresses a view that either your to arrogant to accept, or just plainly stupid in the face of the realiation the airline industry will bounce back and when it does, demand will grow and airlines like SQ will see aquasitons as a big part of that demand.

I couldn't give a rats ass what you think or your reply, I know that there are a hell of alot of people out there that share the same view as me - I guess we are all un-Australian?

Johhny Utah

6th Jun 2003, 15:08

I would suggest that there is a large difference between supporting new entrants & encouraging competition, and what seems to be your ultimate goal of Qantas ending up like Ansett. That would be an Autralian owned company being driven under by an entirely foreign owned entity. If that IS your end goal, then I stand by what my statement that you ARE in fact un-Australian.:rolleyes:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Like many others Pete, I'm still waiting for the Singapore 'White Knight' to ride into town & rescue Australian Aviation. Soon it will be coming up on 2 years since Ansett collapsed - and still no Singapore. However, maybe they ARE just around the corner. Like many others, I'll believe it when I see it :yuk:

By the way - why are you so cranky & uptight? I thought you were having a great time on here stirring all & sundry - it seems like the shoe might be on the other foot now - what do you reckon?:cool:

jakethemuss

6th Jun 2003, 17:20

Dear Pete,

Maybe the SQ Pilots will be ordered by the MOM to take the 22.5% pay cut extremely begrudgingly and SQ offer % increases in the future on RPK increases.

Maybe then they move in to Australia and combined with their VB counterparts put pressure on the cost structure of Qantas and perceived high wages. (based on people not actually knowing what they are talking about).

Maybe then the Qantas Pilots take a big pay cut to compete with the lower cost models.

Maybe then the SQ and VB pilots take a further pay cut to compete with the now lower cost Qantas.

Maybe then the management of all carriers take huge bonuses on the basis of large profits driven by cost savings, of which the pilots have taken care of themselves due to the envy and greed factor that exists amongst some of the more mercenary members of the job (mercenaries don't belong in the profession, see professionals don't begrudge other professionals earnings. But you wouldn't know about that it seems!)

Then I have a dream, ALL pilots unite and fight for better wages and conditions and try to undo the product of their own selfishness and envy over the last few years.

Maybe I can live that dream now and protect the profession by agreeing that yes, there are high water marks and the aim is to get all members of the profession up to the high water mark, not down the drain to the benefit of greedy management who are quick to claim the glory when all is well, and even quicker to blame labour when it falls to **** and their imagined management skills don't cut the mustard, just the workforce.

Pete, open your eyes, grow up and protect the profession which I assume you have work hard to become a part of. Wishing ill will towards your fellow professionals does you no favour. Unless of course, you are not a professional, in which case this message would have been lost on you anyway.

:ok: