The problem with QANTAS is...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Eimeverywhere.
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Tiger, you ask "does anyone have a suggestion as to what Dixon should be earning".
May I ask you why you believe Dixon is justified in drawing a salary that is 100 TIMES, yes 100 TIMES, that of the average QANTAS employee, whilst attempting to further degrade those employees' T & C's, or to replace them altogether with cheaper overseas labour.
Now "replace" is a far kinder word than the harsh reality of this ruthless CEO's intents.
If we believe the Flying Tigers, it is quite acceptable to them, as Australians, to have other Australians (they never think of themselves as being among the affected ones) thrown on to the unemployment scrap heap, leaving them and their families dependant upon Social Welfare.
All to allow Geoff to continue to drain a totally unrealistic, multi-million dollar income.
The "hard decisions" you cite, Flying Tiger, have been hard on on the rank and file staff.
They have not affected - to anywhere near the same degree - the bloated middle and upper level management.
Biscuit Chucker's post demonstrates how Dixon's knife wielding of staff levels of F/A's is adversely affecting the ability of the reduced staff numbers, to achieve their work to their own level of satisfaction, and that this is (adversely) affecting their morale.
The non acceptance of overtime by QF lames, is another manifestation of acute understaffing created by Dixon.
The so-called "hard decisions" (to slash away at employee numbers), are not the sort that require any great management expertise.
Using the same basal technique, the next step would be to replace existing staff with a slightly increased number of lower paid coolies - raising the profit margins for another year, to maintain that healthy CEO bonus - followed by a decrease in coolie numbers in the ensuing years.
There is a great deal of dis-satisfaction with QANTAS from within and outside the organisation, and I believe this dis-satisfaction can only increase further under this style of selfish management.
The type of management that exists only for the sake of feathering its own nest, possibly because the remuneration is TOO high, such that the drive to achieve PERSONAL gain outweighs sensible management decisions made for the longer term benefit and survival of the COMPANY.
The fight for QANTAS' survival in the coming years are not going to be caused by staff inefficiences, but from the bad management decisions being made NOW.
Decisions based on bonuses rather than future company health.
Eimar Moron.
May I ask you why you believe Dixon is justified in drawing a salary that is 100 TIMES, yes 100 TIMES, that of the average QANTAS employee, whilst attempting to further degrade those employees' T & C's, or to replace them altogether with cheaper overseas labour.
Now "replace" is a far kinder word than the harsh reality of this ruthless CEO's intents.
If we believe the Flying Tigers, it is quite acceptable to them, as Australians, to have other Australians (they never think of themselves as being among the affected ones) thrown on to the unemployment scrap heap, leaving them and their families dependant upon Social Welfare.
All to allow Geoff to continue to drain a totally unrealistic, multi-million dollar income.
you have the courage to make the hard decisions BEFORE the red ink starts flowing.
They have not affected - to anywhere near the same degree - the bloated middle and upper level management.
Biscuit Chucker's post demonstrates how Dixon's knife wielding of staff levels of F/A's is adversely affecting the ability of the reduced staff numbers, to achieve their work to their own level of satisfaction, and that this is (adversely) affecting their morale.
The non acceptance of overtime by QF lames, is another manifestation of acute understaffing created by Dixon.
The so-called "hard decisions" (to slash away at employee numbers), are not the sort that require any great management expertise.
Using the same basal technique, the next step would be to replace existing staff with a slightly increased number of lower paid coolies - raising the profit margins for another year, to maintain that healthy CEO bonus - followed by a decrease in coolie numbers in the ensuing years.
There is a great deal of dis-satisfaction with QANTAS from within and outside the organisation, and I believe this dis-satisfaction can only increase further under this style of selfish management.
The type of management that exists only for the sake of feathering its own nest, possibly because the remuneration is TOO high, such that the drive to achieve PERSONAL gain outweighs sensible management decisions made for the longer term benefit and survival of the COMPANY.
The fight for QANTAS' survival in the coming years are not going to be caused by staff inefficiences, but from the bad management decisions being made NOW.
Decisions based on bonuses rather than future company health.
Eimar Moron.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: AUS
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question has to be asked about all this profit by degredation of staff numbers.GD has to continue making profits to please the shareholders.He has done this by reducing employment wage bills.Numbers may be up pax wise, but what about yield?.
Employees wages bill is an easy target for savings.Now he has reduced staff numbers to cater for this and we are on minimum numbers eg LAMES having to work OT to keep the airline running .Just one example .What can he do next year?
Employees wages bill is an easy target for savings.Now he has reduced staff numbers to cater for this and we are on minimum numbers eg LAMES having to work OT to keep the airline running .Just one example .What can he do next year?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with Qantas is that......
It only ever goes as far as the regular posters on PPRUNE, who debate the topic, put forward both good and bad ideas, it goes full circle, a few arguments ensue, and ultimately nothing changes........
It only ever goes as far as the regular posters on PPRUNE, who debate the topic, put forward both good and bad ideas, it goes full circle, a few arguments ensue, and ultimately nothing changes........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Eimeverywhere.
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoff Dixon's warnings of potential calamity in the face of record profits......could this be an admission that he has cut back the number of staff to an unreallistically low level?
The man is full of self contradictions,
Having already slashed Australian staff numbers, and indicated that there are many thousands more to go, the axe is now being wielded into the main QANTAS Company tree, lopping off limbs and branches, to allow him to get "just ONE more Performance Bonus", before the main trunk comes crashing down.
Eimar Moron
The man is full of self contradictions,
"We can't sit here and be all-Australian," Mr Dixon said...more Qantas jobs and services will have to head offshore if the airline is going to compete...Mr Dixon's determination to improve competitiveness would result in more than 7000 jobs moving overseas.
"It doesn't mean we'll be any less Australian and it certainly doesn't mean mass redundancies or anything like that."
"It doesn't mean we'll be any less Australian and it certainly doesn't mean mass redundancies or anything like that."
The segmentation program essentially splits Qantas Group into five airlines – Qantas international, Qantas domestic, Australian Airlines, Jetstar and QantasLink – as well as related businesses such as Qantas Catering and Qantas Holidays.
OK Unions, go for the jugular. If Qantas is not primarily operated and staffed by Australians, reduce its monopoly position proportionately.
In other words unionists, stop whining about Dixons salary. It does nt do you any good. The smart thing is to say OK Qantas, you are now staffed 30% by non australians overseas, we will reduce your share of availablr slots/ capacity on the Australia london and Australia Us routes by 30% and give it to new players.
To put it another way, there is no F%$#@ng excuse for Qantas to have the lions share of Australian aviation capability if it is not an Australian airline.
In other words unionists, stop whining about Dixons salary. It does nt do you any good. The smart thing is to say OK Qantas, you are now staffed 30% by non australians overseas, we will reduce your share of availablr slots/ capacity on the Australia london and Australia Us routes by 30% and give it to new players.
To put it another way, there is no F%$#@ng excuse for Qantas to have the lions share of Australian aviation capability if it is not an Australian airline.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
there is no F%$#@ng excuse for Qantas to have the lions share of Australian aviation capability if it is not an Australian airline (*employing Australians).
was intimating.If Dixon....actually I don't think it's an "IF", he indicates it's a "WHEN".....is going to export so many QANTAS jobs overseas, then bring on the competition.
I have paid EXTRA $$$'s for the sole reason of flying QANTAS, to support an Australian product.
When the CEO of the same company publically states that HE is going to gut the company of everything Australian, except the name, then I believe it's time to level the playing field completely.
If QANTAS, under Dixon, is to become an airline staffed by non-Australians, is there any reason for Australians to support it?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QANTAS - The Spirit of ?
Australia - No
New Zealand?
Thailand?
India?
UK?
....uh....
The Spirit of Corporate Greed!
4tw
Australia - No
New Zealand?
Thailand?
India?
UK?
....uh....
The Spirit of Corporate Greed!
4tw
Last edited by Uncommon Sense; 19th Jan 2005 at 04:15.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Quote
"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."
The most typical attitude by most hosties. All I can say is most hosties are like a deer with no eyes. No idea ... No idea what most pilots go through to get into airlines. They've climbed a lot more ladders, crossed a lot more barriers than all hosties have. And before you criticize me, you know any hosties having grossed less than 5K a year for 10 years while they struggle and aim to get a hosty job in Qantas? No. It just doesnt happen. Im quite willing to walk a mile in your shoes hosties, but they are not moccasins, they are used dunlop volleys. As replaceable as a pea in a golden circle pea cannery.
Hmm as for the pilotless aircraft, bring it on!! I havent mortgaged myself up to the hilt like most hosties so I dont care! I have a skilled profession and a job so it will be a tea party moving on compared to you guys. (By the way the studies you refer are a pilotless hostiless aircraft)
Now Ive hopped off my pedestal, it may sound like Im a hostie hating nazi or something but Im not. There maybe be lots of people bagging hosties on this forum but.. i have never witnessed a pilot bag a flight attendant in front of him/her in real life, but i can tell you I have had a gutful from heaps of hosties for no apparent reason, only because I am a techie!? Im always pleasant and polite, always! And I'd say 50% of QF flight attendants are great fun people. but its not a small minority souring the bucket its around half of them Id say..
"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."
The most typical attitude by most hosties. All I can say is most hosties are like a deer with no eyes. No idea ... No idea what most pilots go through to get into airlines. They've climbed a lot more ladders, crossed a lot more barriers than all hosties have. And before you criticize me, you know any hosties having grossed less than 5K a year for 10 years while they struggle and aim to get a hosty job in Qantas? No. It just doesnt happen. Im quite willing to walk a mile in your shoes hosties, but they are not moccasins, they are used dunlop volleys. As replaceable as a pea in a golden circle pea cannery.
Hmm as for the pilotless aircraft, bring it on!! I havent mortgaged myself up to the hilt like most hosties so I dont care! I have a skilled profession and a job so it will be a tea party moving on compared to you guys. (By the way the studies you refer are a pilotless hostiless aircraft)
Now Ive hopped off my pedestal, it may sound like Im a hostie hating nazi or something but Im not. There maybe be lots of people bagging hosties on this forum but.. i have never witnessed a pilot bag a flight attendant in front of him/her in real life, but i can tell you I have had a gutful from heaps of hosties for no apparent reason, only because I am a techie!? Im always pleasant and polite, always! And I'd say 50% of QF flight attendants are great fun people. but its not a small minority souring the bucket its around half of them Id say..
Being a bit unfair hitching myself to your bandwagon AoA, but you can be happy that you are twenty years younger and twenty kilos lighter than most moccasins wearing Q tendos.
On reflection, my reflection is older and wider than it once was when I wore a younger person's clothes.
On reflection, my reflection is older and wider than it once was when I wore a younger person's clothes.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Got to confess that I must agree with Eimar's observation, it seems that GOD is making "Decisions based on (his) bonuses rather than future company health."
THAT, imo, is the problem with QANTAS today!!
THAT, imo, is the problem with QANTAS today!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's editorial in 'The Australian' is right 'on point' IMHO.
QANTAS boss Geoff Dixon is a hanrahan on what will happen to his airline unless it keeps cutting costs to compete with international carriers. With Qantas paying its own way while the national flag carriers of other countries are subsidised and US airlines are using the shelter of bankruptcy protection to reduce overheads, it is easy to get the impression Mr Dixon fears his airline will be ruined before the year is out. He has a point. If Qantas does not get those of its costs it can control into line with its most efficient competitors it will be unable to compete. And improving overall productivity may mean fewer people working for the airline in Australia. Ninety-four per cent of his 34,000 staff are based here, a figure he wants to reduce, saying Qantas can no longer afford to be an "all Australian" business. Other successful international airlines source anything up to 30 per cent of products and services away from home base. In Qantas's case, to match world-best practice, this could take 7000 jobs out of Australia. Whatever the final number, any move to export jobs will likely generate significant savings. By increasing the number of long-haul flight attendants based in London by 500, to 870, Qantas already expects to save $18 million a year in accommodation and allowances.
While the numbers add up for Mr Dixon, unsurprisingly, the unions are not impressed. Yesterday, flight attendants spokesman Michael Mijatov played the populist, saying Qantas had a responsibility to the Australian community. Nonsense. Qantas is obliged to serve its shareholders and passengers. This requires a well-rewarded workforce, but where they live, or whether they are Mr Mijatov's members, are second-order issues. The last Australian airline that looked after its staff and ignored its bottom line was called Ansett, and today it does not employ anybody, anywhere.
But Qantas is not above playing the Australian card when it suits, selling itself as "the spirit of Australia". To turn Qantas into an efficient – but bland – international carrier, would erode the enormous equity it has built up in an Australian identity. This is hardly likely to happen and we are a long way short of the deracination of the flying kangaroo. However, the airline cannot have it both ways, on the one hand, aspiring to base staff overseas when it suits, while on the other expecting protection as a national icon. As it stands, there is no case for Qantas's present protected access to the lucrative Australia-US route. Mr Dixon's international argument inevitably invites more competition for Qantas from other airlines – whatever the accents of their air crews.
While the numbers add up for Mr Dixon, unsurprisingly, the unions are not impressed. Yesterday, flight attendants spokesman Michael Mijatov played the populist, saying Qantas had a responsibility to the Australian community. Nonsense. Qantas is obliged to serve its shareholders and passengers. This requires a well-rewarded workforce, but where they live, or whether they are Mr Mijatov's members, are second-order issues. The last Australian airline that looked after its staff and ignored its bottom line was called Ansett, and today it does not employ anybody, anywhere.
But Qantas is not above playing the Australian card when it suits, selling itself as "the spirit of Australia". To turn Qantas into an efficient – but bland – international carrier, would erode the enormous equity it has built up in an Australian identity. This is hardly likely to happen and we are a long way short of the deracination of the flying kangaroo. However, the airline cannot have it both ways, on the one hand, aspiring to base staff overseas when it suits, while on the other expecting protection as a national icon. As it stands, there is no case for Qantas's present protected access to the lucrative Australia-US route. Mr Dixon's international argument inevitably invites more competition for Qantas from other airlines – whatever the accents of their air crews.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Michael Mijatov played the populist, saying Qantas had a responsibility to the Australian community. Nonsense
Mr Dixon's international argument inevitably invites more competition for Qantas from other airlines – whatever the accents of their air crews.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK! Frank, I think that was a good post...I think!
Now, could you just spell that out in simple English so we might all know what you're on about?...
or, perhaps, even know what you're on?!
Now, could you just spell that out in simple English so we might all know what you're on about?...
or, perhaps, even know what you're on?!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't normally fly QF due to poor in flight service, but was forced to do so last week due flight timings.
Credit where credit's due. Flight deck commentary was excellent during a tricky approach into Melbourne due to lots of Cb, and afterwards during delay at the gate due to a thunderstorm.
And, dare I say, the cabin service SY-ML-HB was excellent, even if the food was, er, indifferent.
I dips me lid!
Credit where credit's due. Flight deck commentary was excellent during a tricky approach into Melbourne due to lots of Cb, and afterwards during delay at the gate due to a thunderstorm.
And, dare I say, the cabin service SY-ML-HB was excellent, even if the food was, er, indifferent.
I dips me lid!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a lot of self proclaimed experts / protaganists posting crap about QF and Virgin on pprune. Just how many have first hand knowledge as employees of either company would be very interesting. Good to see ARGUS has given his/her reluctant endorsement of QF operational standards. Perhaps someone could explain in what capacity ARGUS and others base their opinions on?