Virgin ready for a 'gunfight'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin ready for a 'gunfight'
Mon "The Australian"
Virgin ready for a 'gunfight'
By Steve Creedy
April 12, 2004
BY the end of last year, Virgin Blue chief executive Brett Godfrey was in dire need of a holiday. Godfrey was feeling the strain after a hectic year – even by Virgin's frenetic standards – and the fatigue was starting to show.
Late nights and early mornings as the airline grew rapidly, working towards December's float, had taken their toll.
Family life had suffered as Godfrey shepherded the airline he refers to as "a third child" to a successful public listing.
"I was close to burnout last year," he says. "I got to a point where we had two shareholders who were trying to decide what to do with the company, we had renegotiated three EBAs (enterprise bargaining agreements), we were trying to launch an international airline and we grew 30 per cent in three months. (With) all those things, you couldn't sit at home and stop thinking about it."
Godfrey still has the occasional sleepless night but a month's holiday in his wife's native Canada has left the Virgin boss revitalised and ready to rumble with low-cost competitor Jetstar.
Sitting in Virgin's Blue Room at Brisbane Airport, Godfrey is relaxed, candid and enthusiastic about the year ahead.
If he is rattled by this month's arrival of Jetstar, it doesn't show as he cheerfully observes how he's looking forward to a fight with the Qantas offshoot that could knock millions off his new-found wealth.
To the contrary, he says, "That's starting to excite me.
"I've got a fight on my hands and I've got to convince our people we're going into another gunfight and we've got to be on our toes. We've got to be sharper and smarter."
Godfrey has come further than he ever dreamed that night in 1993 in the Copthorne Hotel in the London suburb of Crawley when he and Virgin Blue chief operating officer Rob Sherrard sketched out their idea for the low-cost carrier on the back of a beer coaster.
Last December's successful float of Virgin Blue means Godfrey has a paper worth of about $85 million but he is in no hurry to take the money and run.
Instead, and with caveats about family and health, he has promised the airline another three years and has voluntarily locked up his stock.
Godfrey dismisses last year's big windfall as "business as usual", noting he also sold shares when Patrick Corp bought in its 50 per cent stake in the airline.
Asked whether success and wealth have changed him, he says that's for others to judge but he does not believe so.
"I'm living in the same house, driving the same car and my kids are going to the same school," he says.
In fact, he sees a $US285,500 ($373,870) options payment during his Virgin Express days – his first – as far more significant.
"That meant more to me than anything because at that stage the credit card was maxed, I didn't own my house and I was spending more than I earned," he says.
"That was enough to pay off the mortgage and pay off my credit cards and still have a little bit of money. That was the life-changing event."
Besides, he says, setting up Virgin Blue "has always been more about achieving something than becoming wealthy".
"I did it because this to me was a great opportunity, a great challenge and was going to be a lot of fun," he says. "And I do still get out of bed in the morning for a challenge, not a dollar, and I think that's the reason why I continue now."
Godfrey's obsession with his creation is highlighted by the fact he still "chucks bags" and cleans toilets to get a first-hand view of operations.
He jokes that staff refer to him not as a micro-manager but as a "micro-meddler".
"I've always said this is a third child to me and ... I take everything that happens to it very personally," he says.
Despite some worries among analysts about the future competitive effect of Jetstar, rising fuel costs and a weakening dollar, Virgin ended its March financial year on a roll.
By its own estimates, the airline is on track to record a net profit after tax of more than $150 million for the year, up from $108 million last year, on revenues of more than $1.3 billion.
Analysts are tipping it will top $160 million. It has captured more than 30 per cent of the market and is flying a fleet of 41 aircraft with more due on by the the end of next month.
Godfrey continues to predict good times ahead for Virgin Blue and promises it will remain relevant to a wide range of Australian travellers, including the corporate market.
He is expecting a good response to Virgin's international Pacific Blue brand and says he is already working on "a very interesting product initiative that I think will take passengers away from Qantas".
Godfrey says Virgin will repulse Jetstar by remaining relevant to the market and is strongly of the view the new airline poses a bigger threat to Qantas's mainline services.
"They've tried different models and this is interesting but I still think Jetstar is a big bang approach for them," he says. "I think it's either going to win for them or hurt them materially."
Godfrey also believes the arrival of Jetstar will drive efficiency at Virgin Blue and expects the opposition will have a few tricks up its sleeve.
Godfrey faced a steep learn ing curve in starting up Virgin Blue and he now admits there were several occasions in which the concept could have been stillborn.
A University of Victoria graduate, who cut his teeth as an accountant with Touche Ross in Australia and Canada, Godfrey left Australia in 1991 to find work in the aviation industry.
A string of rejections from other airlines would see him find a berth at Virgin Group in 1993 where he would spend three years as Virgin Atlantic's finance manger before moving to Brussels-based cut-price carrier Virgin Express.
It was after honing his skills attempting to cope with the inherited problems of the ill-fated Virgin Express, first as chief financial officer and then as acting chief executive, that Godfrey finally won acceptance for the airline after personally pitching it to Richard Branson in 1999.
Branson asked to see Godfrey's business plan and, by the end of the day, they were batting ideas around.
"Over the weekend we negotiated what my contribution would be and what I'd get for myself and executives that I'd put in as a team," Godfrey says. "So it was all done pretty quickly – it had to be, because we announced in November 1999 down at Customs House."
However, the November 30 announcement at Sydney's Circular Quay almost didn't happen.
As Godfrey landed in Australia in preparation for the big day, he switched on his phone to receive a message to call Branson's office urgently about a change in plans.
He rang to be told his new airline was to be canned because Virgin Atlantic was in sensitive negotiations with Singapore Airlines.
The Singaporeans, at that stage hoping to invest in Ansett, had concerns about a cut-price carrier entering the Australian market.
Godfrey rang Sherrard, who turned up with a slab of beer and the two pondered on their next move.
The airline boss had half a dozen beers in quick succession "because the adrenalin was pumping" and rang Branson.
"I've never spoken to him like it since or before but I gave him a bit of a serve," he says. "I half expected him to say, 'All right, you've had your say, now you're fired'.
"But he didn't. He said he was actually on the verge of calling me back anyway.
"And he said, 'Look, I thought about this and I thought that if I'd listened to all the doubters in my life I would never have started Virgin Atlantic'."
Two days later, Branson and Godfrey were sitting under the glare of media lights at Circular Quay announcing a new era in Australian aviation.
But never in his wildest imaginings could Godfrey predict the startling chain of events that would so quickly catapult Virgin, from its maiden flight on August 31, 2001, into major carrier status.
He knew Ansett was the weak link and believed Virgin Blue would supplant it as the second carrier within five years but not that the Melbourne-based carrier would collapse.
The September 2001 decision to place Ansett in administration placed immense pressure on Virgin and Qantas but opened up an opportunity for the smaller airline to accelerate its growth plans and grab some of Ansett's 46 per cent market share.
Godfrey believes Virgin also benefited from the arrival of Patrick and the addition of a non-airline perspective from Chris Corrigan.
Yet the growth has not been without its problems and, at one stage, led to the airline's maintenance systems coming under increased scrutiny by authorities. More recently, problems with a maintenance record system have seen the airline unable to bring in additional planes and surrendering its twin engine operations status.
Nonetheless, Godfrey believes the problem is licked and Virgin is on track to add five more aircraft by the end of May.
He says he is not slowing down but he is not being as miserly these days with resources and he is trying to find a better balance between work and family.
He has also put in place succession plans for most of the senior executives, including himself.
In the long term he accepts that one day his fledgling airline will fly without him.
"I've got some other ideas I'd like to play around with (that) I can't devote any time to right now," he says.
============================================
Virgin ready for a 'gunfight'
By Steve Creedy
April 12, 2004
BY the end of last year, Virgin Blue chief executive Brett Godfrey was in dire need of a holiday. Godfrey was feeling the strain after a hectic year – even by Virgin's frenetic standards – and the fatigue was starting to show.
Late nights and early mornings as the airline grew rapidly, working towards December's float, had taken their toll.
Family life had suffered as Godfrey shepherded the airline he refers to as "a third child" to a successful public listing.
"I was close to burnout last year," he says. "I got to a point where we had two shareholders who were trying to decide what to do with the company, we had renegotiated three EBAs (enterprise bargaining agreements), we were trying to launch an international airline and we grew 30 per cent in three months. (With) all those things, you couldn't sit at home and stop thinking about it."
Godfrey still has the occasional sleepless night but a month's holiday in his wife's native Canada has left the Virgin boss revitalised and ready to rumble with low-cost competitor Jetstar.
Sitting in Virgin's Blue Room at Brisbane Airport, Godfrey is relaxed, candid and enthusiastic about the year ahead.
If he is rattled by this month's arrival of Jetstar, it doesn't show as he cheerfully observes how he's looking forward to a fight with the Qantas offshoot that could knock millions off his new-found wealth.
To the contrary, he says, "That's starting to excite me.
"I've got a fight on my hands and I've got to convince our people we're going into another gunfight and we've got to be on our toes. We've got to be sharper and smarter."
Godfrey has come further than he ever dreamed that night in 1993 in the Copthorne Hotel in the London suburb of Crawley when he and Virgin Blue chief operating officer Rob Sherrard sketched out their idea for the low-cost carrier on the back of a beer coaster.
Last December's successful float of Virgin Blue means Godfrey has a paper worth of about $85 million but he is in no hurry to take the money and run.
Instead, and with caveats about family and health, he has promised the airline another three years and has voluntarily locked up his stock.
Godfrey dismisses last year's big windfall as "business as usual", noting he also sold shares when Patrick Corp bought in its 50 per cent stake in the airline.
Asked whether success and wealth have changed him, he says that's for others to judge but he does not believe so.
"I'm living in the same house, driving the same car and my kids are going to the same school," he says.
In fact, he sees a $US285,500 ($373,870) options payment during his Virgin Express days – his first – as far more significant.
"That meant more to me than anything because at that stage the credit card was maxed, I didn't own my house and I was spending more than I earned," he says.
"That was enough to pay off the mortgage and pay off my credit cards and still have a little bit of money. That was the life-changing event."
Besides, he says, setting up Virgin Blue "has always been more about achieving something than becoming wealthy".
"I did it because this to me was a great opportunity, a great challenge and was going to be a lot of fun," he says. "And I do still get out of bed in the morning for a challenge, not a dollar, and I think that's the reason why I continue now."
Godfrey's obsession with his creation is highlighted by the fact he still "chucks bags" and cleans toilets to get a first-hand view of operations.
He jokes that staff refer to him not as a micro-manager but as a "micro-meddler".
"I've always said this is a third child to me and ... I take everything that happens to it very personally," he says.
Despite some worries among analysts about the future competitive effect of Jetstar, rising fuel costs and a weakening dollar, Virgin ended its March financial year on a roll.
By its own estimates, the airline is on track to record a net profit after tax of more than $150 million for the year, up from $108 million last year, on revenues of more than $1.3 billion.
Analysts are tipping it will top $160 million. It has captured more than 30 per cent of the market and is flying a fleet of 41 aircraft with more due on by the the end of next month.
Godfrey continues to predict good times ahead for Virgin Blue and promises it will remain relevant to a wide range of Australian travellers, including the corporate market.
He is expecting a good response to Virgin's international Pacific Blue brand and says he is already working on "a very interesting product initiative that I think will take passengers away from Qantas".
Godfrey says Virgin will repulse Jetstar by remaining relevant to the market and is strongly of the view the new airline poses a bigger threat to Qantas's mainline services.
"They've tried different models and this is interesting but I still think Jetstar is a big bang approach for them," he says. "I think it's either going to win for them or hurt them materially."
Godfrey also believes the arrival of Jetstar will drive efficiency at Virgin Blue and expects the opposition will have a few tricks up its sleeve.
Godfrey faced a steep learn ing curve in starting up Virgin Blue and he now admits there were several occasions in which the concept could have been stillborn.
A University of Victoria graduate, who cut his teeth as an accountant with Touche Ross in Australia and Canada, Godfrey left Australia in 1991 to find work in the aviation industry.
A string of rejections from other airlines would see him find a berth at Virgin Group in 1993 where he would spend three years as Virgin Atlantic's finance manger before moving to Brussels-based cut-price carrier Virgin Express.
It was after honing his skills attempting to cope with the inherited problems of the ill-fated Virgin Express, first as chief financial officer and then as acting chief executive, that Godfrey finally won acceptance for the airline after personally pitching it to Richard Branson in 1999.
Branson asked to see Godfrey's business plan and, by the end of the day, they were batting ideas around.
"Over the weekend we negotiated what my contribution would be and what I'd get for myself and executives that I'd put in as a team," Godfrey says. "So it was all done pretty quickly – it had to be, because we announced in November 1999 down at Customs House."
However, the November 30 announcement at Sydney's Circular Quay almost didn't happen.
As Godfrey landed in Australia in preparation for the big day, he switched on his phone to receive a message to call Branson's office urgently about a change in plans.
He rang to be told his new airline was to be canned because Virgin Atlantic was in sensitive negotiations with Singapore Airlines.
The Singaporeans, at that stage hoping to invest in Ansett, had concerns about a cut-price carrier entering the Australian market.
Godfrey rang Sherrard, who turned up with a slab of beer and the two pondered on their next move.
The airline boss had half a dozen beers in quick succession "because the adrenalin was pumping" and rang Branson.
"I've never spoken to him like it since or before but I gave him a bit of a serve," he says. "I half expected him to say, 'All right, you've had your say, now you're fired'.
"But he didn't. He said he was actually on the verge of calling me back anyway.
"And he said, 'Look, I thought about this and I thought that if I'd listened to all the doubters in my life I would never have started Virgin Atlantic'."
Two days later, Branson and Godfrey were sitting under the glare of media lights at Circular Quay announcing a new era in Australian aviation.
But never in his wildest imaginings could Godfrey predict the startling chain of events that would so quickly catapult Virgin, from its maiden flight on August 31, 2001, into major carrier status.
He knew Ansett was the weak link and believed Virgin Blue would supplant it as the second carrier within five years but not that the Melbourne-based carrier would collapse.
The September 2001 decision to place Ansett in administration placed immense pressure on Virgin and Qantas but opened up an opportunity for the smaller airline to accelerate its growth plans and grab some of Ansett's 46 per cent market share.
Godfrey believes Virgin also benefited from the arrival of Patrick and the addition of a non-airline perspective from Chris Corrigan.
Yet the growth has not been without its problems and, at one stage, led to the airline's maintenance systems coming under increased scrutiny by authorities. More recently, problems with a maintenance record system have seen the airline unable to bring in additional planes and surrendering its twin engine operations status.
Nonetheless, Godfrey believes the problem is licked and Virgin is on track to add five more aircraft by the end of May.
He says he is not slowing down but he is not being as miserly these days with resources and he is trying to find a better balance between work and family.
He has also put in place succession plans for most of the senior executives, including himself.
In the long term he accepts that one day his fledgling airline will fly without him.
"I've got some other ideas I'd like to play around with (that) I can't devote any time to right now," he says.
============================================
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, I will say from the outset that I find Godfrey's behaviour to be like that of a whining little girl.
But then, Mr Dixon? Do you chuck bags? Do you clean dunnies? And what about your Executive Management, Mr Dixon? Do they know what is going on at the coal face?
There appears to be a basic difference between QF and DJ. That is that the management at DJ know what is going on with the workers. There may be problems, many of which they aren't willing to fix, but they are aware of them.
QF management haven't got a fricking clue. I watch it every day.
But then, Mr Dixon? Do you chuck bags? Do you clean dunnies? And what about your Executive Management, Mr Dixon? Do they know what is going on at the coal face?
There appears to be a basic difference between QF and DJ. That is that the management at DJ know what is going on with the workers. There may be problems, many of which they aren't willing to fix, but they are aware of them.
QF management haven't got a fricking clue. I watch it every day.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Just a couple of points, the first being the original concept and inspiration of another airline starting up, was to my recollection floated to SRB by some ex-Dispute pilots - obviously BG deserves full credit for working out the finer details (on a beer coaster?!).
And although Cactus Jack seems in full agreement, I have seen the same "... "chucks bags" and cleans toilets to get a first-hand view of operations." from the management here, and wonder WHY?
If they can afford the time to leave the office and do such work, then how much are they REALLY needed in the position for which they are employed, on a full time basis?
Having appointed downline team division managers to oversee daily ops, do companies need full-time CEO's/Presidents?
Why not just bring them in on a casual basis?
What does a CEO achieve, by going out to an aircraft and scrubbing a dunny or two, or hoisting some bags?
Is it intended to show that he's "just another one of the team" - willing to do any task?
IMO, it could be seen more as a lack of confidence and trust in the under-managers responsible for that area.
I believe there are better ways of nurturing the "team spirit", than having management playing these charades.
For example, spend more time to investigate, and then follow up by taking positive action on some of the more vocal "beefs".
And although Cactus Jack seems in full agreement, I have seen the same "... "chucks bags" and cleans toilets to get a first-hand view of operations." from the management here, and wonder WHY?
If they can afford the time to leave the office and do such work, then how much are they REALLY needed in the position for which they are employed, on a full time basis?
Having appointed downline team division managers to oversee daily ops, do companies need full-time CEO's/Presidents?
Why not just bring them in on a casual basis?
What does a CEO achieve, by going out to an aircraft and scrubbing a dunny or two, or hoisting some bags?
Is it intended to show that he's "just another one of the team" - willing to do any task?
IMO, it could be seen more as a lack of confidence and trust in the under-managers responsible for that area.
I believe there are better ways of nurturing the "team spirit", than having management playing these charades.
For example, spend more time to investigate, and then follow up by taking positive action on some of the more vocal "beefs".
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin
We may discuss this further on May 02, but if you inherit management staff or are unsure of the management staff that you have appointed... what better way to find out what's going on than to talk to the coal face staff.
Virgin has expanded fast and it wouldn't surprise me if they hadn't employed a couple of duds because that was all they could find at that time... so sort them out before their probationary period expires.
Isn't there an old saying "Lead by example"?
We may discuss this further on May 02, but if you inherit management staff or are unsure of the management staff that you have appointed... what better way to find out what's going on than to talk to the coal face staff.
Virgin has expanded fast and it wouldn't surprise me if they hadn't employed a couple of duds because that was all they could find at that time... so sort them out before their probationary period expires.
Isn't there an old saying "Lead by example"?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kapt M Godfrey et al have go on what they call road shows where they get out with the coal face workers, work with them, have a chat and then undertake open forums with staff. They do this in all major ports to get feedback and generally have a chat. Works both ways as staff actually see them, not imagining them sitting in their ivory tower, and they also get to see the staff in action. Remember a post a while back where Godfrey apparently sacked a Capt for not getting the plane out on time, that was during a roadshow.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Over 'ere
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M wrote...For example, spend more time to investigate, and then follow up by taking positive action on some of the more vocal "beefs".
How about Mr CEO of Virgin TECH P/L taken some interest in that part (and local management) of his empire - or doen't it yeald the same easy public spin advantages as the DJ? Still, why add publicity to Engineering when it hasn't been one of his highlights to date has it.
How about Mr CEO of Virgin TECH P/L taken some interest in that part (and local management) of his empire - or doen't it yeald the same easy public spin advantages as the DJ? Still, why add publicity to Engineering when it hasn't been one of his highlights to date has it.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Down the rear end.
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That now explains why there hasn't been any whinging lately. And as for his quote about Jetstar/Qantas "I think it's either going to win for them or hurt them materially." Isn't that kind of obvious?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All things in moderation, Kaptin M.
No one is suggesting that Dixon spend all his time out cleaning dunnies. Nor his coprorate cronies. Nor should this be taken as micro managing or not trusting your supervisory chain of command.
It should be seen as getting out there and staying in touch with the airline and it's core business. It is about touching base with the troops, finding out what is going on, and providing some leadership.
One of the problems as I see it in our world is that the definition of "loyalty" seems to have changed. Loyalty now seems to only focus "upwards", not "downwards". Employees are asked to give their all for their CEO and company, but that compliment is not repaid "down" the chain. And no wonder employees don't perform. They have no strong leadership.
Don't worry about "positive action" as you put it with those more "vocal beefs". They are the things as a CEO you already know about and they will get solved. What about the stuff you don't know about?
This is a different sort of "positive action", Kapt, but very positive none the less.
No one is suggesting that Dixon spend all his time out cleaning dunnies. Nor his coprorate cronies. Nor should this be taken as micro managing or not trusting your supervisory chain of command.
It should be seen as getting out there and staying in touch with the airline and it's core business. It is about touching base with the troops, finding out what is going on, and providing some leadership.
One of the problems as I see it in our world is that the definition of "loyalty" seems to have changed. Loyalty now seems to only focus "upwards", not "downwards". Employees are asked to give their all for their CEO and company, but that compliment is not repaid "down" the chain. And no wonder employees don't perform. They have no strong leadership.
Don't worry about "positive action" as you put it with those more "vocal beefs". They are the things as a CEO you already know about and they will get solved. What about the stuff you don't know about?
This is a different sort of "positive action", Kapt, but very positive none the less.
Guest
Posts: n/a
When the "Bow Tie" was CEO of QF he was regulary out talking to the troops and making himself available for a chat. You could call him by his first name without any problems.
Wonder how many QF staff have met Dikko in the workplace,and had a chance to call him Geoff. I've only ever seen him on TV doing a grab. Different blokes. Different styles.
Wonder how many QF staff have met Dikko in the workplace,and had a chance to call him Geoff. I've only ever seen him on TV doing a grab. Different blokes. Different styles.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kap M, BG used to say the idea came from jumpseating with Aussie pilots at VExpress - he said this at a business breakfast anyway. Was told later that this was a bit of spin doctoring on behalf of VB.
Ahh, on the old CEO's are redundant issue again. I agree with you that a CEO's role isn't chucking bags and cleaning toilets. But to say they are redundant and can be brought in on a part time basis walks straight past reality street without even a glance. If you followed GD or BG around for a week I suggest you'd be amazed by how hard they actually work. If you removed the role of CEO who would the downline managers report to? Who would be ultimately responsible for the company's operations? Air NZ/Ansett would be a good example of what can happen to a company without a CEO. Ask anyone who worked for either company during this time frame and they'll tell you what a rudderless ship handles like.
Ahh, on the old CEO's are redundant issue again. I agree with you that a CEO's role isn't chucking bags and cleaning toilets. But to say they are redundant and can be brought in on a part time basis walks straight past reality street without even a glance. If you followed GD or BG around for a week I suggest you'd be amazed by how hard they actually work. If you removed the role of CEO who would the downline managers report to? Who would be ultimately responsible for the company's operations? Air NZ/Ansett would be a good example of what can happen to a company without a CEO. Ask anyone who worked for either company during this time frame and they'll tell you what a rudderless ship handles like.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cairns
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CEO Not Needed HAHAHAHA
Tell me is this where all the professionals hang out?
All I can say is that if Brett can achieve all that he has, in the time he has and had time to get out and work alongside the team, then he is a very efficient and effective CEO. He deserves more credit than QF or DJ arguers are giving him on this site.
If any of you do not agree with his method then guess what? Dixon has a completely different method to both Brett and James, does it work? Lets see! My arguement is that he is cutting his own throat as they say, but is he needed?, yes he is, is he making progress? he has a lot more bullsh*t to deal with than DJ has at the moment and Jetstar will not be the answer to all his problems, so let the games begin!
Written and spoken by BLAH BLAH BLAH for the Keep Aviation Alive and Flying Party- Brisbane!
All I can say is that if Brett can achieve all that he has, in the time he has and had time to get out and work alongside the team, then he is a very efficient and effective CEO. He deserves more credit than QF or DJ arguers are giving him on this site.
If any of you do not agree with his method then guess what? Dixon has a completely different method to both Brett and James, does it work? Lets see! My arguement is that he is cutting his own throat as they say, but is he needed?, yes he is, is he making progress? he has a lot more bullsh*t to deal with than DJ has at the moment and Jetstar will not be the answer to all his problems, so let the games begin!
Written and spoken by BLAH BLAH BLAH for the Keep Aviation Alive and Flying Party- Brisbane!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
G'day bb. I wasn't suggesting that CEO's are redundant, once the companies are "self-sustaining" - only that I don't believe that they NEED to be retained in a full-time position for 365 (or 366) days of the year.
My contention is that if they have appointed suitable down line managers, a CEO...or president, or whatever name they choose to use....should only NEED to "drop by" a couple of times a week, with fortnightly/monthly group meetings, to thrash out any problems that have arisen during the preceding period.
Realistically speaking, if the CEO of any organisation were to disappear for a month..................hang on a minute, let's go back to the original article
Point proven, I believe, bb.
Skyway, I admire Brett Godfrey for what he has achieved - he undoubtedly has great talent and depth of knowledge to produce the product(s), and then grow them, to the point at which they are today.
More remarkable perhaps, is the fact that Geoff Dixon would have been working AGAINST Mr Godfrey to try to prevent the latter from stealing away GD's end of year bonus!
In other words, the "new boy on the block" (BG) outmanoeuvred and outsmarted QF's best brains.
Perhaps shareholders of both companies ought to take this into consideration, when buying/selling shares.
But despite all that has been written since my previous post, I still do believe that the occasional "pitching in" at the coal face amounts to anything more than a propaganda exercise - whether it is believed it is for "the troops", or just a "feel good" exercise, on the part of management who do it.
Personally, I believe that if management REALLY want to get to know how "the workers" feel, there are several other methods that could be employed, that are superior.
"Working the line" only achieves a couple of things, imo, it lets the "brown-nosers" push themselves to the fore, in an attempt to further their OWN personal gains, and subsequently defeats the purpose of the exercise - which was to try to get to the cause of some of the "root problems".
It gives management a FALSE sense of the strengths/problems encountered on a daily basis............"The Boss is around for the next few flights"
Trust yourself by trusting those you have appointed - if you don't, then one of you has flawed decision-making capabilities.
My contention is that if they have appointed suitable down line managers, a CEO...or president, or whatever name they choose to use....should only NEED to "drop by" a couple of times a week, with fortnightly/monthly group meetings, to thrash out any problems that have arisen during the preceding period.
Realistically speaking, if the CEO of any organisation were to disappear for a month..................hang on a minute, let's go back to the original article
BY the end of last year, Virgin Blue chief executive Brett Godfrey was in dire need of a holiday.......a month's holiday in his wife's native Canada has left the Virgin boss revitalised and ready to rumble with low-cost competitor Jetstar.
Skyway, I admire Brett Godfrey for what he has achieved - he undoubtedly has great talent and depth of knowledge to produce the product(s), and then grow them, to the point at which they are today.
More remarkable perhaps, is the fact that Geoff Dixon would have been working AGAINST Mr Godfrey to try to prevent the latter from stealing away GD's end of year bonus!
In other words, the "new boy on the block" (BG) outmanoeuvred and outsmarted QF's best brains.
Perhaps shareholders of both companies ought to take this into consideration, when buying/selling shares.
But despite all that has been written since my previous post, I still do believe that the occasional "pitching in" at the coal face amounts to anything more than a propaganda exercise - whether it is believed it is for "the troops", or just a "feel good" exercise, on the part of management who do it.
Personally, I believe that if management REALLY want to get to know how "the workers" feel, there are several other methods that could be employed, that are superior.
"Working the line" only achieves a couple of things, imo, it lets the "brown-nosers" push themselves to the fore, in an attempt to further their OWN personal gains, and subsequently defeats the purpose of the exercise - which was to try to get to the cause of some of the "root problems".
It gives management a FALSE sense of the strengths/problems encountered on a daily basis............"The Boss is around for the next few flights"
Trust yourself by trusting those you have appointed - if you don't, then one of you has flawed decision-making capabilities.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Kap M, point far from proven. BG would have appointed a deputy (or assistant/stand in etc) to act in his place in his absence. The position of CEO doesn't just stop because the officeholder is absent. The most basic corporate governance requires this.
I don't quite follow your logic on why you admire BG but I do share your admiration. BG heads up a team as dollar focussed and ruthless as GD and has reaped the rewards. He has delivered to his board and his shareholders (which is his job). If you follow GD you will also note that he clearly admires BG and the VB team for their commercial success and is envious of their cost base.
On the subject of packages and bonuses - if you compare and contrast the respective CEO packages over the last 3 years (and we don't even know most of the details for BG when VB was private) there is a clear winner - and he doesn't come from Wagga Wagga.
I don't quite follow your logic on why you admire BG but I do share your admiration. BG heads up a team as dollar focussed and ruthless as GD and has reaped the rewards. He has delivered to his board and his shareholders (which is his job). If you follow GD you will also note that he clearly admires BG and the VB team for their commercial success and is envious of their cost base.
On the subject of packages and bonuses - if you compare and contrast the respective CEO packages over the last 3 years (and we don't even know most of the details for BG when VB was private) there is a clear winner - and he doesn't come from Wagga Wagga.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin
You forget that the CEO/COO is not there JUST to look after the day to day operation... he should be thinking of 5 to 10 years down the track. That is a full time job.
You forget that the CEO/COO is not there JUST to look after the day to day operation... he should be thinking of 5 to 10 years down the track. That is a full time job.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jesus H Christ - how much did Steve McCreedy get paid for doing "This is your life" on Brett Godfrey??
More to the point why even write this article in the first place?
Were they desperate to fill the columns??
Back down to planet earth the fact is this.
Much as we dislike Brett Godfrey for the whinging/whining pain in the arse that he is (just ask the VB Captain that was 'sacked' by him for doing the right thing only to be re-instated by the boss pilot) , he has been successful and is a hard worker.
Managers have different styles and when the chips are down and the companies back is to the wall, that is where the mark of a true manager shines.
With the advent of 9/11 and QF very shrewdly buying up 737-800's/747-400ER's/A330's while every other airline in the world was cancelling orders - that is the mark of the shrewd man that Geoff Dixon is.
The SARS episode recently severly tested not only Dixon once again but every operator into the Asia/Pacific.
Once again he came out ahead against alot of criticism of how he managed the airline through that crisis.
The purchasing of additional slots into London, the purchase of Impulse and the creation/advent of JetStar are indicative of his street-fighter attitude.
He is competitive and doesnt like to be taken lying down so to speak.
Back to Godfrey and the fact is this.
The collapse of Ansett was a god-send to VB and handed to them on a platter a period of growth and prosperity even they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.
And good on them - they seized the opportunity.
In my opinion Godfrey has been riding the gravy train after Ansett collapsed and they could do nothing but prosper with that gap in the market.
QF knew they couldnt fill the void alone.
The fact that VB's engineering was allowed to get into such disarray (QF/AN would be grounded according to one CASA inspector), and is still not quite up to scratch is indicative of either poor management at the top or the fact that an inept engineering manager was firstly appointed and secondly able to pull the wool over everybodies eyes for so long.
With JetStar on the scene and god knows what else may come our way, it will be interesting to see just how Godfrey handles himself with direct competition in the lower cost arena - this will be the true mark of his ability and worth.
To date JetStar is hurting VB and they havent even started up yet in earnest.
Also the media which VB used so effectively as portaying themselves as the "poor aussie battlers" pitted against the 'uncaring and expensive' Qantas will be used just as effectively by JetStar against VB.
As far as the media is concerned VB was yesterdays story and J* will be in the limelight for the forseeable future.
Bet your balls Steve McCreedy will be itching to write a similar article on the Jet Star counterpart and when asked about his Godfrey article say "Brett who?"
That folks is how the media works.
More to the point why even write this article in the first place?
Were they desperate to fill the columns??
Back down to planet earth the fact is this.
Much as we dislike Brett Godfrey for the whinging/whining pain in the arse that he is (just ask the VB Captain that was 'sacked' by him for doing the right thing only to be re-instated by the boss pilot) , he has been successful and is a hard worker.
Managers have different styles and when the chips are down and the companies back is to the wall, that is where the mark of a true manager shines.
With the advent of 9/11 and QF very shrewdly buying up 737-800's/747-400ER's/A330's while every other airline in the world was cancelling orders - that is the mark of the shrewd man that Geoff Dixon is.
The SARS episode recently severly tested not only Dixon once again but every operator into the Asia/Pacific.
Once again he came out ahead against alot of criticism of how he managed the airline through that crisis.
The purchasing of additional slots into London, the purchase of Impulse and the creation/advent of JetStar are indicative of his street-fighter attitude.
He is competitive and doesnt like to be taken lying down so to speak.
Back to Godfrey and the fact is this.
The collapse of Ansett was a god-send to VB and handed to them on a platter a period of growth and prosperity even they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.
And good on them - they seized the opportunity.
In my opinion Godfrey has been riding the gravy train after Ansett collapsed and they could do nothing but prosper with that gap in the market.
QF knew they couldnt fill the void alone.
The fact that VB's engineering was allowed to get into such disarray (QF/AN would be grounded according to one CASA inspector), and is still not quite up to scratch is indicative of either poor management at the top or the fact that an inept engineering manager was firstly appointed and secondly able to pull the wool over everybodies eyes for so long.
With JetStar on the scene and god knows what else may come our way, it will be interesting to see just how Godfrey handles himself with direct competition in the lower cost arena - this will be the true mark of his ability and worth.
To date JetStar is hurting VB and they havent even started up yet in earnest.
Also the media which VB used so effectively as portaying themselves as the "poor aussie battlers" pitted against the 'uncaring and expensive' Qantas will be used just as effectively by JetStar against VB.
As far as the media is concerned VB was yesterdays story and J* will be in the limelight for the forseeable future.
Bet your balls Steve McCreedy will be itching to write a similar article on the Jet Star counterpart and when asked about his Godfrey article say "Brett who?"
That folks is how the media works.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIMMEEEE
Some pundits could say that GD has not managed that well. You have to admit QF benefitted enourmously from Ansetts demise and contributed to it.
QF's market share went from 54% to 94%. Under GD's stewardship it has gone down to around 65%. In my book that is not good management. This market share was handed to QF on a platter and should have been held on to.
As for the purchase of the aircraft, again, Ansett's demise enabled QF to do this.
Do you agree that QF should have maintained it's 94%. I would be interested in knowing your thoughts on why they lost it.
Remember, no whining or whinging!!.
Some pundits could say that GD has not managed that well. You have to admit QF benefitted enourmously from Ansetts demise and contributed to it.
QF's market share went from 54% to 94%. Under GD's stewardship it has gone down to around 65%. In my book that is not good management. This market share was handed to QF on a platter and should have been held on to.
As for the purchase of the aircraft, again, Ansett's demise enabled QF to do this.
Do you agree that QF should have maintained it's 94%. I would be interested in knowing your thoughts on why they lost it.
Remember, no whining or whinging!!.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timee, QF made it clear at the time that 94% was unsustainable and unenconomical given the resourcing available. We all recall the line in the sand quote. I don't think the drop from 94% to the present is much of a bad mark - a drop from the present however may be a different story.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HGW , the fact was that neither the regulator, government, ACCC nor public would accept a 2 tier system whereby one had 90 odd percent and the other less than 10.
Could you imagine Alan Fels reaction if this was to remain so???
For true competition, something along current lines is the order of the day and seems to work quite well.
Besides, if VB wanted to expand and were not given those all too precious slots into Sydney airport then it would have been Godfrey's flapping gums at twenty paces all over the screen on the 6 o'clock news.
It was bad enough when they wanted the old Ansett terminal at Sydney airport and whined incessantly every day about their "shed".
The fact was that they didnt want to pay the going rate for it!!
When they realised QF was after part of the terminal also they came to their senses and decided to stop their whinging game and actually cough up some money to secure the terminal while there was still time.
Besides, there was an article in yesterdays Sydney Daily Telegraph talking about the successes of Geoff Dixon and spoke extremely well of his ability to manage under pressure and in periods of crisis.
As I said, that is the mark of a true manager and in my opinion the jury is still out on Godfrey.
So far all I have seen in terms of crisis (?) was VB have a delayed start due to their inability to provide the correct paperwork for the granting of an AOC (Godfrey oversaw this and it cost them alot of money), watched him ride the VB gravy train as they expanded with approval of both the government and regulator after the demise of Ansett(how could you go wrong there guys), and finally saw him go into auto-gibber and start getting flustered when Jetstar launched its low cost intro fares.
Finally I've heard little from Godfrey about the farce that their engineering system has become under the watchful eye of both himself and what is laughingly termed an engineering manager.
I especially liked the way they commented on reporting themselves to CASA when it was plainly obvious CASA was well aware and would have quashed their application to seek ETOPS approval and refused to allow further aircraft onto the register until they sought out their maintenance.
Crises they're not but the result of poor management (especially engineering).
Time will tell.
Could you imagine Alan Fels reaction if this was to remain so???
For true competition, something along current lines is the order of the day and seems to work quite well.
Besides, if VB wanted to expand and were not given those all too precious slots into Sydney airport then it would have been Godfrey's flapping gums at twenty paces all over the screen on the 6 o'clock news.
It was bad enough when they wanted the old Ansett terminal at Sydney airport and whined incessantly every day about their "shed".
The fact was that they didnt want to pay the going rate for it!!
When they realised QF was after part of the terminal also they came to their senses and decided to stop their whinging game and actually cough up some money to secure the terminal while there was still time.
Besides, there was an article in yesterdays Sydney Daily Telegraph talking about the successes of Geoff Dixon and spoke extremely well of his ability to manage under pressure and in periods of crisis.
As I said, that is the mark of a true manager and in my opinion the jury is still out on Godfrey.
So far all I have seen in terms of crisis (?) was VB have a delayed start due to their inability to provide the correct paperwork for the granting of an AOC (Godfrey oversaw this and it cost them alot of money), watched him ride the VB gravy train as they expanded with approval of both the government and regulator after the demise of Ansett(how could you go wrong there guys), and finally saw him go into auto-gibber and start getting flustered when Jetstar launched its low cost intro fares.
Finally I've heard little from Godfrey about the farce that their engineering system has become under the watchful eye of both himself and what is laughingly termed an engineering manager.
I especially liked the way they commented on reporting themselves to CASA when it was plainly obvious CASA was well aware and would have quashed their application to seek ETOPS approval and refused to allow further aircraft onto the register until they sought out their maintenance.
Crises they're not but the result of poor management (especially engineering).
Time will tell.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIMMEEEE
I believe you don't know enough of the facts to make an honest comment about the Ansett terminal in Sydney. SACL wanted three times the rate they were charging QF. Thats why BG was bleating and didn't have the might of the QF lobby machine in Canberra.
We agree to differ.
I believe you don't know enough of the facts to make an honest comment about the Ansett terminal in Sydney. SACL wanted three times the rate they were charging QF. Thats why BG was bleating and didn't have the might of the QF lobby machine in Canberra.
We agree to differ.
