No-frills kangaroo ready to hop
As a ruthless CEO the Psyche tests are very important!
They surreptitiously deliver me pilots, through psychological weighting, who have a higher sense of duty and would never strike! The older pilots, who were not initiated by these means, too busy lining their own nests at the top end to present a corporate problem.
As a ruthless CEO, in using the pilot market against my non-strikers, I realise the riff raff LCC could bring. The solution being their contract and the natural divisiveness and rivalry of Australian pilots. I have seen more unity amongst multi-cultural taxi drivers on a Sydney cab rank!
All else failing I would look across the Tasman just as my land owning and drinking buddies at Wagga Wagga did with the shearers.
They surreptitiously deliver me pilots, through psychological weighting, who have a higher sense of duty and would never strike! The older pilots, who were not initiated by these means, too busy lining their own nests at the top end to present a corporate problem.
As a ruthless CEO, in using the pilot market against my non-strikers, I realise the riff raff LCC could bring. The solution being their contract and the natural divisiveness and rivalry of Australian pilots. I have seen more unity amongst multi-cultural taxi drivers on a Sydney cab rank!
All else failing I would look across the Tasman just as my land owning and drinking buddies at Wagga Wagga did with the shearers.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Hate to say it Keg (btw check your PM`s....ooopps sorry, just checked mine after posting, doh!! 
), but if there`s the slightest opportunity for the breed of today`s pilots to score a shiney new (or used) jet job with an airline, they`ll grab it with both hands regardless of remuneration and contractual conditions, and with complete disregard for the incumbents and any flow on effect.
Betchya if you ran an ad for A320/737 Capts on $50k pa, based in Oz, you`d be deluged with qualified applicants.
Little by little, Dixon is carving QANTAS flying up and farming it out to lower paid employees - meanwhile, AIPA keeps reassuring its members that everything is under control.
It is - but not their`s!!
), but if there`s the slightest opportunity for the breed of today`s pilots to score a shiney new (or used) jet job with an airline, they`ll grab it with both hands regardless of remuneration and contractual conditions, and with complete disregard for the incumbents and any flow on effect.Betchya if you ran an ad for A320/737 Capts on $50k pa, based in Oz, you`d be deluged with qualified applicants.
Little by little, Dixon is carving QANTAS flying up and farming it out to lower paid employees - meanwhile, AIPA keeps reassuring its members that everything is under control.
It is - but not their`s!!
Last edited by Kaptin M; 22nd Oct 2003 at 10:35.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFX News
Corrigan welcomes Qantas competition for Virgin Blue
The ceo of Virgin Blue part owner Patrick Corp, Chris Corrigan, has welcomed Qantas’ decision to launch a rival low-cost carrier.
”We’re willing to take on competition from whomever,” Corrigan told AFX News.
“We’ve always been very pro-competition and pretty keen to take Qantas on in whatever guise they want to work in.”
At the Qantas AGM in Adelaide last week, the airline’s chief executive, Geoff Dixon, announced the as-yet-unnamed budget arm would start flights from May 2004.
The new airline would have a fleet of 23 by mid-2005.
But Corrigan was dismissive of the new airline’s chances of winning market share from Virgin Blue.
“I’d point out to you that if Qantas do start a low-cost carrier, they’re primarily going to be competing against themselves, no matter how you cut the cake,” he said.
Patrick Corp bought a $260 million, 50 per cent stake in Virgin Blue last year.
Corrigan would not comment on speculation from some analysts that Qantas' decision to launch the discount airline could affect the timing of Virgin Blue's plan to float, which has been planned for the end of this year.
"Clearly that's in the Virgin group’s hands, and they're working to their own timetable," he said.
============================================
Corrigan welcomes Qantas competition for Virgin Blue
The ceo of Virgin Blue part owner Patrick Corp, Chris Corrigan, has welcomed Qantas’ decision to launch a rival low-cost carrier.
”We’re willing to take on competition from whomever,” Corrigan told AFX News.
“We’ve always been very pro-competition and pretty keen to take Qantas on in whatever guise they want to work in.”
At the Qantas AGM in Adelaide last week, the airline’s chief executive, Geoff Dixon, announced the as-yet-unnamed budget arm would start flights from May 2004.
The new airline would have a fleet of 23 by mid-2005.
But Corrigan was dismissive of the new airline’s chances of winning market share from Virgin Blue.
“I’d point out to you that if Qantas do start a low-cost carrier, they’re primarily going to be competing against themselves, no matter how you cut the cake,” he said.
Patrick Corp bought a $260 million, 50 per cent stake in Virgin Blue last year.
Corrigan would not comment on speculation from some analysts that Qantas' decision to launch the discount airline could affect the timing of Virgin Blue's plan to float, which has been planned for the end of this year.
"Clearly that's in the Virgin group’s hands, and they're working to their own timetable," he said.
============================================
Just remember its been 2 years now Most 320 drivers have jobs elswhere so they do have a choice, at 50K they would be swamped but most guys would not accept . 10 years o/seas or another 25 years in Australia to earn the same cash.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: never long in one place
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It amazes me that you people can waste 10 pages/146 posts when QF have already made it clear that the 'new' LCC will be either Qlink (impluse) or a completely new operation.
Now given that QF actually own the Impulse 717 operation, unlike NJS, and the Qlink 717 operation is already an LCC, why wouldn't QF just retrain those aircrew onto the 800NGs (most likely) and phase out the 717s over the next few years?
There won't be any mainline pilots given slots at Qlink because it defeats Dixon's purpose. They will recruit their own crews as Impulse did before. Most, or all, of the endorsement training expenses will be part of the aircraft deal. Not that that is a biggy at Qlink anyway as at least they don't require (yet) for pilots to pay for their own endorsement.
The good news is there will be jobs for both experienced guys and young pilots on their way up. The pay won't be mainline but neither will it be Jetconnect slave wages.
why ferfarksache do you overcomplicate things?
Now given that QF actually own the Impulse 717 operation, unlike NJS, and the Qlink 717 operation is already an LCC, why wouldn't QF just retrain those aircrew onto the 800NGs (most likely) and phase out the 717s over the next few years?
There won't be any mainline pilots given slots at Qlink because it defeats Dixon's purpose. They will recruit their own crews as Impulse did before. Most, or all, of the endorsement training expenses will be part of the aircraft deal. Not that that is a biggy at Qlink anyway as at least they don't require (yet) for pilots to pay for their own endorsement.
The good news is there will be jobs for both experienced guys and young pilots on their way up. The pay won't be mainline but neither will it be Jetconnect slave wages.
why ferfarksache do you overcomplicate things?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Shea Stadium
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VB have come along and totally redrawn the aviation landscape in Oz. An fell over and are now a faded memory.
QF will adjust to the new way of doing things or they will also struggle.
This may mean delayed upgrades for mainline pilots but they will always have a job and will always retain the salaries they have. Despite Eazy, Ryan, Shuttle by United etc, mainline pilots at BA, LH, DL and AA still get paid the same wage.
As far as I can tell, the opinion of some QF posters here is that we (pilots outside QF) should refuse to work for QF LCC as it will harm the pay and COS of pilots in Oz (ie – QF pilots)
This is ludicrous.
QF will adjust to the new way of doing things or they will also struggle.
This may mean delayed upgrades for mainline pilots but they will always have a job and will always retain the salaries they have. Despite Eazy, Ryan, Shuttle by United etc, mainline pilots at BA, LH, DL and AA still get paid the same wage.
As far as I can tell, the opinion of some QF posters here is that we (pilots outside QF) should refuse to work for QF LCC as it will harm the pay and COS of pilots in Oz (ie – QF pilots)
This is ludicrous.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: 1/12 Lord ST Botany ;)
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pete conrad.
I am glad you are moving away. I had a laugh at you, then I felt a bit sad for you. You are one of the privilaged few that can openly state that you would enjoy watching people loose there jobs. Men and women with families and house repayments. Do us all a favour and change your handle as I really dont believe you could get thru any interview for contract or not as you are far to excitable and transperant.
imagine the thumb is my middle finger and pete it's just for you.
I am glad you are moving away. I had a laugh at you, then I felt a bit sad for you. You are one of the privilaged few that can openly state that you would enjoy watching people loose there jobs. Men and women with families and house repayments. Do us all a favour and change your handle as I really dont believe you could get thru any interview for contract or not as you are far to excitable and transperant.
imagine the thumb is my middle finger and pete it's just for you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thurs "Sydney Morning Herald"
Qantas stepping boldly into space
By Alan Kohler
October 23, 2003
Qantas's description of its planned reorganisation the other day said that Alan Joyce, the man who will run the new low-cost airline, had been involved with Aer Lingus's low-cost airline strategy.
What it didn't mention is that the Irish carrier's low-cost airline strategy didn't exactly work and that Aer Lingus is still struggling to compete against its nemesis, Ryan Air. In fact, it is right now embroiled in a nasty cabin crew strike over wages that led to 26 flights being cancelled today, stranding thousands of passengers at Shannon Airport.
Perhaps Alan Joyce learnt from Aer Lingus's mistakes and won't repeat them at Qantas.
Not that the Irish have a mortgage on messing up discount airlines - there's been an entire lexicon of such failures around the world.
Air Canada tried "Zip", Delta Airlines "Song", SAS "Snowflake", KLM "Buzz" and British Airways went with "Go". In each case, the full service airline tried to tackle a successful discount start-up by launching its own low-cost airline.
And in each case it didn't Go, lacked Zip and Buzz, and didn't have a Song or, indeed, a Snowflake's chance in hell.
At the same time as flagging its own, as yet unnamed attempt (Hop? Or perhaps Quokka?), Geoff Dixon has launched a McKinsey & Co-led restructure of Qantas into seven separate business units, plus four service companies, each of which will be autonomous and accountable for its bottom line.
This was possibly designed to cope with the need for full cost separation of the new low-cost subsidiary, although that is not entirely clear. Qantas says it hasn't yet worked out how the new airline will be costed - whether it will have to pay full price for internal Qantas shared services like IT and HR, or whether it will get a subsidised free ride so it can compete effectively with Virgin Blue, which has a lower cost base than Qantas.
This is the nub of the problem for CEO Geoff Dixon and the issue that has tripped up every other incumbent carrier trying to deal with cut-price competition. Dixon has been able to put it off because, until Virgin Blue arrived, all his cut-price competitors were undercapitalised and went broke - and so did his full service competitor, Ansett.
But there are big global forces at work here and Geoff Dixon is far from alone in trying to face them.
As it happens, a McKinsey director in New York, Lowell Bryan, gave a briefing to a small group in Australia yesterday about what the firm sees as the big issues now for corporations. Although neither he nor anyone else at McKinsey will talk about a specific client, Bryan's main point was that the key challenge facing corporations today is the over-capacity resulting from massive over-investment during the 1990s, while at the same time satisfying the demand from institutional investors for short-term performance.
Companies were able to use excess profits in their domestic markets to subsidise expansion into new markets. Now they are facing over-capacity and commoditisation of their products, associated with "white knuckle" global competition.
Many firms, he said, needed a "capacity exit strategy" while at the same time trying to ensure line managers make this quarter's earnings targets. That is leading to increased autonomy in the business units.
In the 1970s and '80s, inefficiencies were often buried inside large conglomerates and hidden by super profits produced by oligopoly pricing.
Now those super profits have gone and companies need to "atomise" their businesses so they can get better control of costs and hold managers more accountable. The trouble is although there is now no free ride from either economic growth or monopoly rent, sharemarket analysis is much more demanding than ever before, requiring short-term profits to be maintained while the "capacity exit strategy" is implemented.
Bryan listed several global industries that were in chronic over-capacity: chemicals, pulp and paper, steel and airlines.
He didn't say so, but that doesn't apply to Australia because the "capacity exit strategy" was the demise of Ansett. But for Qantas there is definitely "white knuckle" competition now.
Splitting Qantas into seven autonomous businesses turns it into a holding company that can more efficiently allocate capital between the businesses.
Apart from the nightmare of having a total of 17 direct reports, the risk for Geoff Dixon is that he will spend all his time counting money instead of making it - what Lowell Bryan called, in another context, "harvesting the franchise".
It's hard to work out whether the Qantas board is being courageous or desperate.
===========================================
Qantas stepping boldly into space
By Alan Kohler
October 23, 2003
Qantas's description of its planned reorganisation the other day said that Alan Joyce, the man who will run the new low-cost airline, had been involved with Aer Lingus's low-cost airline strategy.
What it didn't mention is that the Irish carrier's low-cost airline strategy didn't exactly work and that Aer Lingus is still struggling to compete against its nemesis, Ryan Air. In fact, it is right now embroiled in a nasty cabin crew strike over wages that led to 26 flights being cancelled today, stranding thousands of passengers at Shannon Airport.
Perhaps Alan Joyce learnt from Aer Lingus's mistakes and won't repeat them at Qantas.
Not that the Irish have a mortgage on messing up discount airlines - there's been an entire lexicon of such failures around the world.
Air Canada tried "Zip", Delta Airlines "Song", SAS "Snowflake", KLM "Buzz" and British Airways went with "Go". In each case, the full service airline tried to tackle a successful discount start-up by launching its own low-cost airline.
And in each case it didn't Go, lacked Zip and Buzz, and didn't have a Song or, indeed, a Snowflake's chance in hell.
At the same time as flagging its own, as yet unnamed attempt (Hop? Or perhaps Quokka?), Geoff Dixon has launched a McKinsey & Co-led restructure of Qantas into seven separate business units, plus four service companies, each of which will be autonomous and accountable for its bottom line.
This was possibly designed to cope with the need for full cost separation of the new low-cost subsidiary, although that is not entirely clear. Qantas says it hasn't yet worked out how the new airline will be costed - whether it will have to pay full price for internal Qantas shared services like IT and HR, or whether it will get a subsidised free ride so it can compete effectively with Virgin Blue, which has a lower cost base than Qantas.
This is the nub of the problem for CEO Geoff Dixon and the issue that has tripped up every other incumbent carrier trying to deal with cut-price competition. Dixon has been able to put it off because, until Virgin Blue arrived, all his cut-price competitors were undercapitalised and went broke - and so did his full service competitor, Ansett.
But there are big global forces at work here and Geoff Dixon is far from alone in trying to face them.
As it happens, a McKinsey director in New York, Lowell Bryan, gave a briefing to a small group in Australia yesterday about what the firm sees as the big issues now for corporations. Although neither he nor anyone else at McKinsey will talk about a specific client, Bryan's main point was that the key challenge facing corporations today is the over-capacity resulting from massive over-investment during the 1990s, while at the same time satisfying the demand from institutional investors for short-term performance.
Companies were able to use excess profits in their domestic markets to subsidise expansion into new markets. Now they are facing over-capacity and commoditisation of their products, associated with "white knuckle" global competition.
Many firms, he said, needed a "capacity exit strategy" while at the same time trying to ensure line managers make this quarter's earnings targets. That is leading to increased autonomy in the business units.
In the 1970s and '80s, inefficiencies were often buried inside large conglomerates and hidden by super profits produced by oligopoly pricing.
Now those super profits have gone and companies need to "atomise" their businesses so they can get better control of costs and hold managers more accountable. The trouble is although there is now no free ride from either economic growth or monopoly rent, sharemarket analysis is much more demanding than ever before, requiring short-term profits to be maintained while the "capacity exit strategy" is implemented.
Bryan listed several global industries that were in chronic over-capacity: chemicals, pulp and paper, steel and airlines.
He didn't say so, but that doesn't apply to Australia because the "capacity exit strategy" was the demise of Ansett. But for Qantas there is definitely "white knuckle" competition now.
Splitting Qantas into seven autonomous businesses turns it into a holding company that can more efficiently allocate capital between the businesses.
Apart from the nightmare of having a total of 17 direct reports, the risk for Geoff Dixon is that he will spend all his time counting money instead of making it - what Lowell Bryan called, in another context, "harvesting the franchise".
It's hard to work out whether the Qantas board is being courageous or desperate.
===========================================
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Hot Chili Pepper,
Why do you find the QF pilot position ludicrous?
A previous lengthy debate raged on this forum on this topic about two months ago. The feeling of some posters then was that QF pilots should wage an industrial campaign against lower wages for new entrants, at the same time as the new entrants were happy to join at grossly reduced wages, and possibly even paying for their own endorsements!
Why would QF pilots want to get involved in such a campaign if they knew that their own jobs (in the event of an industrial meltdown) would be quickly taken by other such "eager beavers"?
Imagine if you were to join the LCC, and then in the future, other pilots were employed under even lower wages than yours? Would you feel your pay level to be under threat? Would you then feel the way that we do now? If industry does revolve around supply and demand, pilot conditions will only improve when the various companies cannot find enough qualified pilots around who are prepared to work for crap!
Why do you find the QF pilot position ludicrous?
A previous lengthy debate raged on this forum on this topic about two months ago. The feeling of some posters then was that QF pilots should wage an industrial campaign against lower wages for new entrants, at the same time as the new entrants were happy to join at grossly reduced wages, and possibly even paying for their own endorsements!
Why would QF pilots want to get involved in such a campaign if they knew that their own jobs (in the event of an industrial meltdown) would be quickly taken by other such "eager beavers"?
Imagine if you were to join the LCC, and then in the future, other pilots were employed under even lower wages than yours? Would you feel your pay level to be under threat? Would you then feel the way that we do now? If industry does revolve around supply and demand, pilot conditions will only improve when the various companies cannot find enough qualified pilots around who are prepared to work for crap!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Asia
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan Kohler provides an interesting commentary on whether the glass is half full or half empty. There is no conclusion which is an insight in itself.
After all the anaysis QF is still diving into murky water hugging the twin philosophies of 'we have to do something' and 'time will tell'.
The key issue in atomising the group as proposed, is the management of conflict of interests which could inhibit the ability of management to allocate capital more efficiently.
In order to achieve full-cost separation Geoff Dixon will have to be brutal in addressing the issue of corporate overheads. He must allow all the business units to build their own cost structures and this could well mean a substantial increase in unit overhead costs in the core business/holding company. Expect major pushback in this area.
One side effect of this break up, assuming QF is true to its word on independence of the 7 sisters and the 4 cousins, is that in order to reap its benefits QF has to dilute its critical mass.
Harvesting a franchise is well and good but continued harvesting requires long term committment to soil management.
Courage or desperation? I think a bit of both.
After all the anaysis QF is still diving into murky water hugging the twin philosophies of 'we have to do something' and 'time will tell'.
The key issue in atomising the group as proposed, is the management of conflict of interests which could inhibit the ability of management to allocate capital more efficiently.
In order to achieve full-cost separation Geoff Dixon will have to be brutal in addressing the issue of corporate overheads. He must allow all the business units to build their own cost structures and this could well mean a substantial increase in unit overhead costs in the core business/holding company. Expect major pushback in this area.
One side effect of this break up, assuming QF is true to its word on independence of the 7 sisters and the 4 cousins, is that in order to reap its benefits QF has to dilute its critical mass.
Harvesting a franchise is well and good but continued harvesting requires long term committment to soil management.
Courage or desperation? I think a bit of both.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt that they are discussing it, Blo Moi. The cost savings of training staff in-house must be significant, even with type-ratings packaged in with new aircraft.
The question is: are they preparing to train present mainline crews or outside, yet-to-be-nominated people? Or both?
Perhaps if the LCC is to be crewed by mainline you might also start to hear the 747 & 767 training departments start to work out how to cover their respective shortfalls as pilots of all ranks move across to Skimpy. Simultaneously, shouldn't HR start making noise about resuming recruitment from the street?
Also, bear in mind that if it was a simle transfer of mainline 737 crews to a new arm (a la Australian's 767 ops) there really shouldn't be an overly cumbersome training requirement at all - they're already trained.
23 new aircraft in 12 months. Assuming 10 pilots per aeroplane (9.4 is a number i've heard) that's either 230 mainline crew, 230 new-hires or a mixture of the present Qantaslink 717 crews and maybe 90 additional pilots for the new type (mainline or off-the-street?)
Whichever way, it is a lot of pilots and someone is going to have to train them. Just because the 737 training dept. is trying to work out how to do it, does that mean that it HAS to be mainline?
I wish I knew now, but only time will tell.
The question is: are they preparing to train present mainline crews or outside, yet-to-be-nominated people? Or both?
Perhaps if the LCC is to be crewed by mainline you might also start to hear the 747 & 767 training departments start to work out how to cover their respective shortfalls as pilots of all ranks move across to Skimpy. Simultaneously, shouldn't HR start making noise about resuming recruitment from the street?
Also, bear in mind that if it was a simle transfer of mainline 737 crews to a new arm (a la Australian's 767 ops) there really shouldn't be an overly cumbersome training requirement at all - they're already trained.
23 new aircraft in 12 months. Assuming 10 pilots per aeroplane (9.4 is a number i've heard) that's either 230 mainline crew, 230 new-hires or a mixture of the present Qantaslink 717 crews and maybe 90 additional pilots for the new type (mainline or off-the-street?)
Whichever way, it is a lot of pilots and someone is going to have to train them. Just because the 737 training dept. is trying to work out how to do it, does that mean that it HAS to be mainline?
I wish I knew now, but only time will tell.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: back in europe
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic,
Best post I have read on this forum for about two years.
QF loses significant economies of scale and operational flexibility by segmenting the airline.
It significantly increases the number of non-operational admin staff because of the need for each business unit to have functionality in the myriad of disciplines that are required for a safe and commercially efficient high capacity airline operation.
In essence - more blunts, on bigger bonuses at the expense of the revenue producing technical aircrews conditions.
Best post I have read on this forum for about two years.
QF loses significant economies of scale and operational flexibility by segmenting the airline.
It significantly increases the number of non-operational admin staff because of the need for each business unit to have functionality in the myriad of disciplines that are required for a safe and commercially efficient high capacity airline operation.
In essence - more blunts, on bigger bonuses at the expense of the revenue producing technical aircrews conditions.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Shea Stadium
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kohler’s article is full of errors.
“Air Canada tried "Zip", Delta Airlines "Song", SAS "Snowflake", KLM "Buzz" and British Airways went with "Go". In each case, the full service airline tried to tackle a successful discount start-up by launching its own low-cost airline. And in each case it didn't Go, lacked Zip and Buzz, and didn't have a Song or, indeed, a Snowflake's chance in hell.”
Wrong.
Zip, Song and Snowflake are still in operation and are growing. A startup should have enough funding to let the red ink flow for up to 3 years before turning a profit, according to David Neeleman of Morris Air, West Jet and Jetblue, and others in the know.
Mr Kohler should check his facts.
Three Bars,
I think it is ludicrous for QF pilots to expect others in the industry to refuse a job offer from QF LCC (or VB or Impulse) because it will put QF pilots wages “under threat”.
Being employed in Oz and enjoying the sun on your back and the salt spray in your face, you assume the only yardstick left in the industry is Money. It isn’t.
I am not an “eager beaver”. I am an experienced ex AN driver, maybe older and wiser than you, maybe not. I am currently employed overseas and although I have enjoyed the experience of flying in a different part of the world, I have had my fill and am keen to come back to my country – employment prospects permitting.
I don’t really care who I fly for – I was an Ansett pilot through and through and as such I have exhausted all of my corporate spirit on the company I loved. I am just a driver for hire and would fly a coal barge if it paid enough to put food on the table and a surfboard under my feet. In Oz.
I hope QF LCC pay a king’s ransom and raise the pay and conditions of all pilots downunder – QF included. But I take offence at suggestions that I should sit on the sidelines and watch in fear of threatening the lifestyle of people who have never even experienced the real world of aviation – it sucks out there.
“Air Canada tried "Zip", Delta Airlines "Song", SAS "Snowflake", KLM "Buzz" and British Airways went with "Go". In each case, the full service airline tried to tackle a successful discount start-up by launching its own low-cost airline. And in each case it didn't Go, lacked Zip and Buzz, and didn't have a Song or, indeed, a Snowflake's chance in hell.”
Wrong.
Zip, Song and Snowflake are still in operation and are growing. A startup should have enough funding to let the red ink flow for up to 3 years before turning a profit, according to David Neeleman of Morris Air, West Jet and Jetblue, and others in the know.
Mr Kohler should check his facts.
Three Bars,
I think it is ludicrous for QF pilots to expect others in the industry to refuse a job offer from QF LCC (or VB or Impulse) because it will put QF pilots wages “under threat”.
Being employed in Oz and enjoying the sun on your back and the salt spray in your face, you assume the only yardstick left in the industry is Money. It isn’t.
I am not an “eager beaver”. I am an experienced ex AN driver, maybe older and wiser than you, maybe not. I am currently employed overseas and although I have enjoyed the experience of flying in a different part of the world, I have had my fill and am keen to come back to my country – employment prospects permitting.
I don’t really care who I fly for – I was an Ansett pilot through and through and as such I have exhausted all of my corporate spirit on the company I loved. I am just a driver for hire and would fly a coal barge if it paid enough to put food on the table and a surfboard under my feet. In Oz.
I hope QF LCC pay a king’s ransom and raise the pay and conditions of all pilots downunder – QF included. But I take offence at suggestions that I should sit on the sidelines and watch in fear of threatening the lifestyle of people who have never even experienced the real world of aviation – it sucks out there.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
IMHAHO, G.D. is in this totally for himself - after all, isn't this the way we have been "cultured" to think for the past 14 years? (There ya go, Buster!!)
When you have squeezed the lemon for as much as you can wring from it as a whole, then dice it up, and squeeze each piece individually!
Airlines are no longer being run as a "single unit", but have tended to become divided into separate units - catering, maintenance, cleaning, etc. - which IN FACT is cr@p, because each is reliant upon the individual success of each company flight, to ensure their overall continuation, when in fact the failure of ANY of these individual units would have ZERO effect on the immediate revenue production of the company.
In other words, the division of a major airline into separate income/expenditure responsible units, is an exercise in futility and monetary MIS-management!!
The creation of a superficial "low cost" (read low-salary for the majority) company, by a larger parent company, will result in eventual failure for both.
When you have squeezed the lemon for as much as you can wring from it as a whole, then dice it up, and squeeze each piece individually!
Airlines are no longer being run as a "single unit", but have tended to become divided into separate units - catering, maintenance, cleaning, etc. - which IN FACT is cr@p, because each is reliant upon the individual success of each company flight, to ensure their overall continuation, when in fact the failure of ANY of these individual units would have ZERO effect on the immediate revenue production of the company.
In other words, the division of a major airline into separate income/expenditure responsible units, is an exercise in futility and monetary MIS-management!!
The creation of a superficial "low cost" (read low-salary for the majority) company, by a larger parent company, will result in eventual failure for both.
Evertonian
It wouldn't have meant as much if it didn't come from you Kaptin !!
Interesting how the breaking of airlines' into groups has come, almost, full circle.
Sir Reg tried diversification to stave off the vultures like Abeles, and in the end, it attracted a bigger vulture to have a crack at the business, just to get ATV 10! One wonders if this is not just another way that history is repeating itself?
Interesting how the breaking of airlines' into groups has come, almost, full circle.
Sir Reg tried diversification to stave off the vultures like Abeles, and in the end, it attracted a bigger vulture to have a crack at the business, just to get ATV 10! One wonders if this is not just another way that history is repeating itself?