The problem with QANTAS is...

[DEFCON4]

Important People ?

QF Addresses
[email protected]
[email protected]
Let them rip Boris

[Eimar Moron]

You're not exactly the sharpest tack in the box, are you Amos, with your "observation" - subtlety not your strongest point.

Why waste time emailing, vote with your feet.
I have!

Another dis-satisfied QANTAS ex-customer.

By the way, Flying Tiger, do you think it right that one employee, Dixon, should scoop 11/2% of the NETT PROFIT of QF.
QF might well be a 365/24-7 operation, but has anyone noticed he hasn't been around AT ALL for the past fortnight.

His tactics to raise returns have entailed mainly lowering employees' salaries and increasing their workload.
That having now reached its limits heralds a slide downhill for QF and shareholders' returns, imo.

Eimar Moron

[Flying Tiger]

Elmar

The answer is yes. I do think CEO's of large companies are entitled to generous packages. And no, I don't think salaries in the millions of dollars are excessive. Even more galling to you would be my belief that Dixon probably has a family, and is just as entitled to a holiday as everyone else.

The constant Dixon bashing on this forum, crikey and within the ranks of Qantas employees is classic tall poppy syndrome. I would be interested to know what YOU think a CEO is worth. Give me a figure. And more to the point, give me a rationale on how you arrive at this figure.

At the moment the market dictates management salaries. To get the people you want, you pay a certain price. Sometimes that price is high, but if you don't pay it, they walk. Its a perfectly rational way of determining salaries.

Compare this with other employees. What determines our salaries? The market? No! Try history, union obstructionism and the constant threat of industrial action if we don't get our own way.

I may offend people because I don't look at the industry from a pilot's perspective...I prefer to take a commercial view. To my mind, creating efficiencies involves pain of a short term nature only. You may have to pay for your endorsement now, but the equation is very simple. Efficient industries equals a more price competitive product. A more price competitive product equals more opportunity for growth. More opportunity for growth equals more jobs, albeit initially at a lesser rate. More jobs equals more opportunity for promotion, which in turn equals a skills shortage in the labour market. A skills shortage in the labour market in the long term equals sustainable increases in wages and conditions for those professions where the shortage exists.

From a pilots point of view all of the above can be translated in one simple phrase...greater efficiencies equals greater growth equals more aeroplanes equals faster promotions equals better career opportunities and better career opportunities lead to retention problems and therefore better pay and conditions.

I have been telling people this for as long as I can remember. All the doom and gloom re pilots conditions was only a short term thing. Sure there is some short term pain, but the efficiencies and success of new generation airlines will be their downfall when it comes to keeping a lid pilots salaries. Look at Singapore - the LCC's and SilkAir etc are desperate for pilots and have significantly increased salaries. Look at Jetconnect - desperate for pilots, losing guys left right at centre, a significant pay increase, and still a shortage of crews. And wait until Jetstar pilots start accumulating significant A320 experience - it will be carnage and I can foresee uncrewed aircraft parked against a fence. Even now, I know two low time guys who haven't flown in 3 YEARS who have just picked up FO jobs overseas. These are long term, sustainable improvements in the labour market that are driven purely by supply and demand.

Sadly for flight attendants, the above will operate in reverse. Why? Because its a job requiring little in the way of qualification, and there will NEVER be a shortage of capable people. On the contrary, there will ALWAYS be an oversupply of candidates willing and able to do the job. All they can do is rely on their OBSTRUCTIVE union to protect what will prove to be the unprotectable. Virgin appear to have happily satisfied the regulator with their mix of hairdressers, beautitions and receptionists, so do you think 85K plus is justified for Qantas' pampered mix of licorice all sorts? Unlikely.

Look at the FAAA's attitude towards Australian Airlines. The company wants to grow and operate longer routes, and the FAAA claim amongst other things a 17% pay rise and preferential bidding. Essentially they try and turn it into Qantas. Well d'oh, the closer it becomes to Qantas, the less reason for anyone except Qantas to do the flying. But of course Qantas can't fly the routes, because they become uneconomic, and the flying is lost, together with the jobs. Congratulations FAAA, you've increased the pay and conditions, but you've killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Australian Airlines? RIP.

As a labour voter and a passionate critic of our esteemed Prime Minister, the above views may appear a little inconsistent. However, I try to look at every situation on its merits and react to what I observe. And what I observe from the Qantas cabin crew and the FAAA when viewed on a reward for effort basis is blatantly wrong. I never thought I'd say this, but I hope little Johnny Howard gives Dixon a hand in his quest to rip the FAAA apart.

FT.

[Uncommon Sense]

Now I get it.

Didn't get a job as a flight attendant.

Too compassionate perhaps?

[Chief Chook]

With almost half of your last post dedicated to F/A and FAAA bashing, you certainly have a big chip on those shoulders, don`t you Flying Tigger.

Dixon probably has a family

Well you`re not wrong there, pussycat - perhaps the Queen Bee in the QF beehive, has even more than one

[Icarus2001]

A persons salary is a function of how difficult it would be to replace them. It is usually that simple. Therein lies the problem of GA in Australia. The glut of pilots however, seems to have shrunk to a more realistic number and so demand will definately stimulate better T & C.

Flying Tiger I agree with some of your post about short term effects on the labour market. I disagree about huge CEO salaries though, especially when the company goes backwards and the CEO still makes millions. There is something wrong with the mechanism when that happens!

You may be a laboured voter but I think that you probably mean Labor.

[Frank Burden]

I also disagree on such high CEO salaries. You see many of the managers these days making short term decisions as they have a short term tenure in an organisation. One of my senior managers once said when asked what the vision for the organisation was replied a renewal of their two year contract in six months time. So you can really appreciate the value of long-term decision making and the protection of the brand with this attitude. Short term profit often leads to long term suffering.

I remember a certain person now running a very large airport somewhere in NSW running the bus network in Canberra. Politicians thought he was perfect as he reduced operating costs (personnel, overhead, maintenance, etc). A year or two after he left the system was in chaos with broken buses, poor quality staff and zero morale. It took years and considerable capital to fix the problem. Pleased I didn't have to rely on the system when I lived there.

[INCOGNIT0]

So are you leading by example FT and taking that pay cut to decrease Q's overheads and cut it's costs?...I think not, 'pay the elitist creed what we think is deserving or we will walk OS' seems to be the gist of your piffle.
What about answering the first point as well and throwing in your support of the LAME's cause instead of just contriving narrow minded conjecture.Q and the overpaid Dixon are losing touch with not only it's customers but also it's workforce,especially it's LAME's who are the true bread and butter earners for this seemingly apparent feudalistic based airline.Q is still riding the wave of Ansett's collapse and if Q is the futuritial thinking and acting airline basing it's decisions on what the customer demands as you imply then the likes of VB would have never got off the ground or at least not have grown so fast.If it wasn't for the hard work,long hours away from loved ones and on the whole dedicated highly skilled professionals presenting a safe, appeasing product to YOU and the public you would be just another black stain in a large hole somewhere on this earth.

[oicur12]

Flying Tiger,

"Compare this with other employees. What determines our salaries? The market? No! Try history, union obstructionism and the constant threat of industrial action if we don't get our own way."

And when history is forgotten and union obstructionism is circumvented and the threat of industrial action is therefore diminished, as is happening in the airline industry in Australia, what determines our "salaries" then. Perhaps market forces will play a more prominent role?

Icarus,

"I disagree about huge CEO salaries though, especially when the company goes backwards and the CEO still makes millions"

Flying Tiger made reference to GD of Qantas. He is CEO of what recently was (and may still be - numbers pending) the most profitable airline in the world (not my words).
You are jumping at shadows - no one here has put forth an argument that CEO's deserve "huge" salaries when the company they are managing goes "backwards".

One only wonders where Ansett would now be had the board upped the compensation package for CEO and employed someone with market savvy like Jeffrey Bezos or industrial balls like Geff Immelt or Dave Cody.

Incognito

"Q is still riding the wave of Ansett's collapse...."

Perhaps they are. Maybe GD is smarter than you think.

[Sunfish]

Tiger, I agree with you on some points but not on others.

CEO salaries are high for good reason, its a 24/7 job and you must make decisions for the benefit of the shareholders as a whole, which may involve even selling the company and eliminating your own position. Furthermore, one mistake, or a change of management fashion fads, and you are out on your @rse. It is not easy.

To put it in personal terms, "I'll be f*&^%ed if I'm going to work my @rse off and carry the responsibility to make tens or hundreds of millions for shareholders without a percentage of it coming to me. I want equity if you expect me to hire people smarter then myself and really increase shareholder value".

I also agree that Qantas needs to change and that change is painful for them for good reason. - Qantas has had an effective monopoly for a long time and prising it from their fingers is going to hurt. Australia will be a lot better off without Qantas and their monopoly.

Where I do not agree with you is that Dixon bashing is tall poppy syndrome. This guy is a classic narcissistic personality disorder manager. The letter about Hamilton Island and the Jetstar Asia move are dead giveaways. Dixon is not interested in building a great airline - he is interested in building great self esteem for Dixon, nothing else. In pursuit of continually bolstering this self esteem he will literally do anything and leave a train wreck behind. I've watched it before.

However a train wreck Qantas might be just whats needed to open Australian skies.

[Flying Tiger]

Plenty of reaction to my post, but I note that there continues to be an absence of an answer to one question...does anyone have a suggestion as to what Dixon should be earning, and the rationale for the calculation?

Its all very well to criticise, but you're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

I guess everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I believe in hard work and rewards based on your skills and productivity, and my opinion is that QF cabin crew provide little in either department, and continually do whatever they can to rort the system (roster adjustments etc). And don't start me on the quality of the service.

I am a pilot and I say unashamedly that any inefficiencies affect profit, price competitiveness and therefore growth. As such, they bear a direct negative impact on the ability of the airline to put new aircraft on the ramp, which in turn affects promotional prospects.

In this context, I will always have little regard for any employee group that chooses to be inefficient and unproductive, and this applies to pilots just as much as anyone else. However, as far as I can see, in legacy airlines no group is more culpable than the flight attendants.

Icaraus, I apologise to you for my typo. It was not long ago that many ppruners were strong in their criticism of Qantas decision to make HSC English a minimum requirement. However, it seems there is less compassion towards grammatical imperfections on the pprune. The common thread seems to be you don't need great English to fly a jet, but the boys and girls will hammer you if you slip up on pprune!

Consistency? Nothing like a good set of double standards!

FT.

[Sunfish]

There are consultancies like Hay/MSL who advise Boards on salaries, up to and including CEO's and Directors. There is also a quarterly salary and benefits survey that gets trotted around - you get a copy if you participate in the survey.

I would think that Dixon's package would have some relationship to this type of benchmark - it would be in the minutes of the remuneration committee meetings.

The actual terms of his contract would depend on how good a law firm he uses to negotiate it. The trend in the U.S. is to have an employment contract and a back to back severance contract as well. The severance contract usually has a number of "triggers", like takeover/change of control, termination as an employee, mutual agreement etc. etc. It also would have vesting rights clauses regarding options and all that jazz.

The trouble with changing an organisation's culture is that everyone is for change when it involves someone else, and against it when it involves themselves. You either do change quick and dirty, like a variety of U.S. airlines in bankruptcy, or you do it slow and cleanly with consultation, voluntary redundancy programs yadda yadda. Quick and clean is an impossibility and slow and dirty is awfully suboptimal. Guess which method Dixon is using?

[jettlager]

flying tigger,

just love your bull**** sweeping statements.

"and continually do whatever they can to rort the system (roster adjustments etc). "

Tell us all will you, just what are the rorts to which we continually resort?

[argusmoon]

Pilot=Monitors

Flying Tiger
Pilots in general appear to be concerned with other peoples renumeration more than anybody else ...why I will never know.
From my perspective pilots like you are merely grossly overpaid monitors...the aircraft essentially flies itself.Studies are being conducted on the feasability of pilotless aircraft.Perhaps once you are redundant you may like a position as a flight attendant.Walk a mile in my moccasins before you criticize what I do

[Argus]

Argusmoon

Walk a mile in my moccasins before you criticize what I do

It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it. And, with great respect, if you are a QF flight attendant, you don't do it very well.

I will not fly with QANTAS, especially on long haul routes.

It's not because of the flight deck crew or engineering staff. It's because the standard of QF cabin service is generally way below what the competition offers.

I work for myself. I stand or fall on the quality of service I provide for my clients, most of whom are satisfied with what I do. I go out of my way to ensure client satisfaction. No clients, no income.

When I'm paying top dollar for Business Class travel to/from Europe and North America, I expect to receive in flight service that represents value for my hard earned money. Unfortunately, when compared to the likes of Cathy, Lauda (Austrian), JAL, Air Canada, Malaysia, Singapore and even BA, QANTAS doesn't get to first base.

I don't expect forelock tugging servitude from cabin staff. But I do expect basic manners, a customer focussed approach to reasonable requests and flight attendant availability throughout the flight/sector. In my experience, QANTAS fails on all three counts. Rather than getting on with the job and maintaining the revenue flow, QANTAS cabin crew are more interested in preserving the Public Service attitude of "rights", "entitlements" and "hard won" employment conditions.

Complaints to QANTAS Head Office either go unanswered or are responded to in ambiguous language that rarely answers the questions put by the complainant. So punters like me vote with their feet.

Take a moment to look at the Skytrax 2004 Worlds Best Cabin Staff Survey Globally, for the second year running, QANTAS fails to make the top ten. Regionally, QF ranks five out of five. The supporting information says that the survey attracted more than two million (2,117,846) eligible nominations from 93 different nationalities over a 10 month period, there were detailed back-up interviews of a representative sample of respondents and, finally, data weighting was applied to provide nomination equity when evaluating airlines of different size and network. Unless that’s a load of porkpies, it’s a well run survey, with reliable results.

Sorry girls and boys, time to get real - if you are 'fair dinkum' about your jobs you need to meet the competition.

[Uncommon Sense]

Flying Tiger,

By your rationale, your position as a QF Pilot should therefore be opened up to the market.

You should abandon your union protectionism and let NZ, ME and Asian based companies bid for providing tech crew to QF. More companies like JetConnect, Impulse, National Jet etc.

If there are or in the future will be (as market conditions dictate) a pool of capable people who are willing to let the market dictate a cut price service to provide safe piloting (or systems monitoring as someone else said) to QF, then you should gladly let them roll in and do so. (Perhaps they might even do it with a smile as opposed to grumpy pilots like you - much better for the customer no?)

If the QF CEO then gives himself and his cronies a nice bigger fatter bonus for doing so, you will stand on the sidelines and applaud the market forces at work?

[Howard Hughes]

Biccy Chucker,

Could it be that asian airlines are able to have almost twice the number of cabin staff, because they are working for half the price?

Perhaps managements continual drive to reduce wages and put jobs offshore, is so that they can employ more staff and provide a premium service?

Cheers, HH.



PS: I dont really think so, but just putting forward a hypothesis.

[Howard Hughes]

I don't ever see QF giving back a crew member though, they'll pocket the extra cash and that'll be the end of it.

How true and very sad of our "national carrier".

Now before you all start, I do realise that they are a private company, but they are still considered around the world as our flag carrier.

Cheers, HH.

[Uncommon Sense]

You think QANTAS want to reduce salaries and conditions of cabin crew so they can:

a.) increase the number of cabin crew on flights , or

b.) increase the bonuses in the executive pockets?

Get Real.

They will even tell you they are doing it for their shrareholders.

Well maybe one or two eh Geoff?

What will the shares be worth when real competition arrives and nobody will fly with them anymore?

[ferris]

I think Flying Tiger is giving some good, sound, economic advice. Although I'm unsure about...

I am a pilot and I say unashamedly that any inefficiencies affect profit, price competitiveness and therefore growth. As such, they bear a direct negative impact on the ability of the airline to put new aircraft on the ramp, which in turn affects promotional prospects

Why would promotional prospects feature on anyone's radar? After the FAs are all replaced by Thais, the pilots replaced with remote systems operated by call-centre type ops from India, or Thais, and of course that grossly inefficient management team replaced with far more sustainable , cost effective , people (like, say, a Thai MBA or two- you could get 400 just for Dixons pay alone!).
Why you all keep mentioning people , or their aspirations, is just beyond me. Labour is just a cost......




As are consulting firms who try and run interference on industrial issues by posting on PPRUNE etc.

The Spirit of Australia