This bloke seems to hate pilots, he loves Geoff!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This bloke seems to hate pilots, he loves Geoff!
It may have been posted in another topic, but I post here for seperate comments - this writer seems to not hold back his very bias opinion - has this article been sponsored by Geoff? ( i think Geoff has a far better PR department, than any pilot body - be it AIPA or otherwise. What AIPA clearly needs is a professional, hired PR person/department which can counter these articles) I thought reporters were meant to research their facts. I would love to know what he earns, and how he can possibly justify his wage.
If he makes a serious mistake (like most of the attached article) all he has to do (probably only when threatened with legal action) is make an apology or retraction in a newspaper.....if a pilot makes a mistake.........
From the Australian Newspaper:
Australian Article
Flying in the face of tradition
The boss of Jetstar shows that airlines can make money writes Matthew Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 12, 2006
WHILE his pilots circle the Federal Court, trying to turn back their industrial relations clock, Geoff Dixon resolutely pushed ahead yesterday with Qantas's plans to create the lowest-cost international airline flying Australian skies.
And no, that will not be Qantas. Dixon's low-cost brand is Jetstar and from November it will replace Australian Airlines as the Flying Kangaroo's low-cost, or in airline speak, "leisure market" operator.
There is a lot to admire about Dixon. He is working in a most unusual industry, if only because a bulk of the international competitors in the long-haul market do not seem to care that much whether they make money or not.
And yet the Qantas team's relentless, stealthy search to balance business growth with improved productivity and cost reduction has shaped a business which usually earns better than its cost of capital. And that is a rare feat in the airline game.
The only arm of Qantas's business which last year fell short of Dixon's primary fiscal ambition was international. The effective transfer of Australian Airlines international routes to Jetstar should help change that. Where Australian lost money last year, Jetstar would have made a comfortable profit.
Why? Because Jetstar's costs are about 30 per cent lower than Australian and a remarkable 40 per cent lower than Qantas.
How is that? Because Jetstar employs its staff under an enterprise agreement completely different to the collection of historical baggage that is Qantas's workplace arrangements. The effect is that Jetstar pays its A320 pilots $148,000 a year. Qantas pays them something closer to $250,000. Jetstar uses fewer cabin crew more efficiently and for less pay than Qantas. And so it goes across the board from maintenance to administration.
Jetstar should be a model for those who continue to carry the flame of workplace reform in Australia. The discount airline was created to clarify and protect the Qantas brand and profit base from the threat of cut-price competition in the domestic market. As the same time it has allowed Qantas to release the hounds of workplace reform. So effective is the Jetstar business model that it was inevitable it would replace Australian.
The key to winning in the discount services game is, obviously, controlling costs of delivery. Like Virgin Blue, Jetstar was able to rewrite the rules, most particularly in its workplace deals. Only Jetstar did even better than Sir Richard Branson's Aussie love child. Jetstar workers do more for less than anyone in Australian airlines.
And, if the endorsement of the new EBA covering international flights by 70 per cent of Jetstar pilots is any guide, the workers don't mind the new world at all.
The old ones, though, are starting to worry and to express their agitation. After failing to interest the AIRC in their case, Qantas pilots went to the Federal Court last month to stop the latest Jetstar pay deal. The Top Guns at Qantas reckon the deal undercut their industry standards and so fails the "no disadvantage test".
Meanwhile Dixon has decided to further test the tolerance of Qantas staff with the intriguing decision to switch 400 Australian Airlines staff into Qantas livery.
Qantas will "wet lease" the Australian fleet. Which means the Australian planes will fly under the Qantas banner, their crews will wear Qantas uniforms and their customers will be booked through Qantas systems. And yet they will be paid less than other Qantas crews.
This puts the various unions covering Qantas in a potentially difficult position. Any sustained protest might well risk 400 redundancies rather than the 40 cuts (no redundancies) Qantas is looking for.
Talking of jobs, given expected regulatory approvals, Jetstar will be on the hunt later this year for 550 new employees including 50-60 pilots, cabin crew, airport management and head office staff.
The 30 per cent expansion in Jetstar's number again shows how wrong is the perception that Dixon is a ruthless job cutter. In fact, the strategy for Jetstar keeps Dixon on track to maintain a record of creating about 1000 jobs a year.
The other intriguing cat let out of Dixon's bag yesterday is that he is trying to convince the federal Government to accept a golden share in return for surrendering some, or all, of the three-tier controls on Qantas's share register.
When the Government floated the national carrier it limited ownership by any one shareholder to a maximum of 25 per cent, ownership by an alliance of airlines to 35 per cent and overall foreign ownership to 49 per cent.
At the time it may have seemed Qantas needed that level of defence from muscled-up international predators. It has had the opposite effect though. It has prevented Qantas from capturing the full value of its comparatively stronger performance.
Effectively, the Qantas board does not have full control of its capital base. At least not enough to enter a takeover or merger that would involve a major equity placement or swap with potential international partners or targets.
Dixon's proposed kangaroo share, which has airline equivalents in Singapore, New Zealand and Britain, would give the federal Government power to approve any major evolution of Qantas's capital base. The effect of that would be that international governments would still view Qantas as operating under Australian Government control no matter who spoke for the equity of the business.
Which all sounds good. But the fact that Dixon has to lob such an idea at the Government, which after all can control foreign ownership of Qantas through the Foreign Investment Review Board, tells us that it is not of a mind to change the current ties binding Qantas.
If he makes a serious mistake (like most of the attached article) all he has to do (probably only when threatened with legal action) is make an apology or retraction in a newspaper.....if a pilot makes a mistake.........
From the Australian Newspaper:
Australian Article
Flying in the face of tradition
The boss of Jetstar shows that airlines can make money writes Matthew Stevens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 12, 2006
WHILE his pilots circle the Federal Court, trying to turn back their industrial relations clock, Geoff Dixon resolutely pushed ahead yesterday with Qantas's plans to create the lowest-cost international airline flying Australian skies.
And no, that will not be Qantas. Dixon's low-cost brand is Jetstar and from November it will replace Australian Airlines as the Flying Kangaroo's low-cost, or in airline speak, "leisure market" operator.
There is a lot to admire about Dixon. He is working in a most unusual industry, if only because a bulk of the international competitors in the long-haul market do not seem to care that much whether they make money or not.
And yet the Qantas team's relentless, stealthy search to balance business growth with improved productivity and cost reduction has shaped a business which usually earns better than its cost of capital. And that is a rare feat in the airline game.
The only arm of Qantas's business which last year fell short of Dixon's primary fiscal ambition was international. The effective transfer of Australian Airlines international routes to Jetstar should help change that. Where Australian lost money last year, Jetstar would have made a comfortable profit.
Why? Because Jetstar's costs are about 30 per cent lower than Australian and a remarkable 40 per cent lower than Qantas.
How is that? Because Jetstar employs its staff under an enterprise agreement completely different to the collection of historical baggage that is Qantas's workplace arrangements. The effect is that Jetstar pays its A320 pilots $148,000 a year. Qantas pays them something closer to $250,000. Jetstar uses fewer cabin crew more efficiently and for less pay than Qantas. And so it goes across the board from maintenance to administration.
Jetstar should be a model for those who continue to carry the flame of workplace reform in Australia. The discount airline was created to clarify and protect the Qantas brand and profit base from the threat of cut-price competition in the domestic market. As the same time it has allowed Qantas to release the hounds of workplace reform. So effective is the Jetstar business model that it was inevitable it would replace Australian.
The key to winning in the discount services game is, obviously, controlling costs of delivery. Like Virgin Blue, Jetstar was able to rewrite the rules, most particularly in its workplace deals. Only Jetstar did even better than Sir Richard Branson's Aussie love child. Jetstar workers do more for less than anyone in Australian airlines.
And, if the endorsement of the new EBA covering international flights by 70 per cent of Jetstar pilots is any guide, the workers don't mind the new world at all.
The old ones, though, are starting to worry and to express their agitation. After failing to interest the AIRC in their case, Qantas pilots went to the Federal Court last month to stop the latest Jetstar pay deal. The Top Guns at Qantas reckon the deal undercut their industry standards and so fails the "no disadvantage test".
Meanwhile Dixon has decided to further test the tolerance of Qantas staff with the intriguing decision to switch 400 Australian Airlines staff into Qantas livery.
Qantas will "wet lease" the Australian fleet. Which means the Australian planes will fly under the Qantas banner, their crews will wear Qantas uniforms and their customers will be booked through Qantas systems. And yet they will be paid less than other Qantas crews.
This puts the various unions covering Qantas in a potentially difficult position. Any sustained protest might well risk 400 redundancies rather than the 40 cuts (no redundancies) Qantas is looking for.
Talking of jobs, given expected regulatory approvals, Jetstar will be on the hunt later this year for 550 new employees including 50-60 pilots, cabin crew, airport management and head office staff.
The 30 per cent expansion in Jetstar's number again shows how wrong is the perception that Dixon is a ruthless job cutter. In fact, the strategy for Jetstar keeps Dixon on track to maintain a record of creating about 1000 jobs a year.
The other intriguing cat let out of Dixon's bag yesterday is that he is trying to convince the federal Government to accept a golden share in return for surrendering some, or all, of the three-tier controls on Qantas's share register.
When the Government floated the national carrier it limited ownership by any one shareholder to a maximum of 25 per cent, ownership by an alliance of airlines to 35 per cent and overall foreign ownership to 49 per cent.
At the time it may have seemed Qantas needed that level of defence from muscled-up international predators. It has had the opposite effect though. It has prevented Qantas from capturing the full value of its comparatively stronger performance.
Effectively, the Qantas board does not have full control of its capital base. At least not enough to enter a takeover or merger that would involve a major equity placement or swap with potential international partners or targets.
Dixon's proposed kangaroo share, which has airline equivalents in Singapore, New Zealand and Britain, would give the federal Government power to approve any major evolution of Qantas's capital base. The effect of that would be that international governments would still view Qantas as operating under Australian Government control no matter who spoke for the equity of the business.
Which all sounds good. But the fact that Dixon has to lob such an idea at the Government, which after all can control foreign ownership of Qantas through the Foreign Investment Review Board, tells us that it is not of a mind to change the current ties binding Qantas.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not forget that the pilots in AIPA made a conscious and voluntary decision all those years ago to leave the AFAP, the only real pilots union at the time.
GD is now doing a great job for his shareholders - and isn't THAT his duty?
GD is now doing a great job for his shareholders - and isn't THAT his duty?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone not at Qantas think he's a genius. Anyone at Qantas think he's destroying the airline.
I guess time will tell but you can guarantee that GD will have left with a humungously, embarrassingly large payout before the long term effects of his actions have come to fruition.
I guess time will tell but you can guarantee that GD will have left with a humungously, embarrassingly large payout before the long term effects of his actions have come to fruition.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper,
Back when you are talking about there was probably around 300-400 qf pilots.
Now there is 2400.
I'm in AIPA and I didn't leave the AFAP.
From what i've seen in my short 15 years as a professional pilot I wouldn't rate the AFAP as a good union. (nor AIPA for that matter, but I do hold some hope under the new leadership)
By the way, I use the term professional pilot loosely, it's obvious, that outside our own ranks, that no-one rates us as professionals anymore.
Back when you are talking about there was probably around 300-400 qf pilots.
Now there is 2400.
I'm in AIPA and I didn't leave the AFAP.
From what i've seen in my short 15 years as a professional pilot I wouldn't rate the AFAP as a good union. (nor AIPA for that matter, but I do hold some hope under the new leadership)
By the way, I use the term professional pilot loosely, it's obvious, that outside our own ranks, that no-one rates us as professionals anymore.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Future
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the thread divergence, but you gotta love the AFAP, still sitting there wondering why everyone left! Bwahahahahahha! 
To Mathew Stevens, I look forward to a junior journalist offering to write your pathetic ar$e kissing blurbs for a fraction of the salary you currently enjoy. It is clear you are angling for a job with PBL, why, because they pay more? Or are you under cutting some one else for their job?
I would like to know on what basis you think Jester would have made a profit on AO routes. Would they have been impervious to SARS, the Bali bombings, and the bird flu threat? Of course they wouldnt you idiot! Do you think a 330 (With no ETOPS approval for Jester yet) would have made more money? Do you think the Japanese market would have suddenly embraced a low cost no service product like Jester? And yes, I know they will be offering 2 class now, but you could argue that AO would have done a lot better if it had J class, and 330s. Past results in domestic do not automatically transfer into future results in international. Do we need to review the MASSIVE losses reported by Jester Asia? What makes you think Jester Int will do better than Jester Asia? Same clowns pulling the pupet strings. If they had the answers, dont you think they would be applying this magic formula in Jester Asia?
To Mathew Stevens, I look forward to a junior journalist offering to write your pathetic ar$e kissing blurbs for a fraction of the salary you currently enjoy. It is clear you are angling for a job with PBL, why, because they pay more? Or are you under cutting some one else for their job?
I would like to know on what basis you think Jester would have made a profit on AO routes. Would they have been impervious to SARS, the Bali bombings, and the bird flu threat? Of course they wouldnt you idiot! Do you think a 330 (With no ETOPS approval for Jester yet) would have made more money? Do you think the Japanese market would have suddenly embraced a low cost no service product like Jester? And yes, I know they will be offering 2 class now, but you could argue that AO would have done a lot better if it had J class, and 330s. Past results in domestic do not automatically transfer into future results in international. Do we need to review the MASSIVE losses reported by Jester Asia? What makes you think Jester Int will do better than Jester Asia? Same clowns pulling the pupet strings. If they had the answers, dont you think they would be applying this magic formula in Jester Asia?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Casper
GD is now doing a great job for his shareholders - and isn't THAT his duty?
Just look at the fabulous shareholder returns in the last 5 yrs with Dixon at the helm!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to write a letter to the Australian trying to correct some of the misleading statements, factual errors and shoddy comparisons he made in the article, but it got way too long.
This guy has very clearly been spoon-fed this info from QF or Jetstar management, and has swallowed it hook line and sinker. In exchange, I imagine, for a very nice lunch and a bottle of 1995 St Henri. AIPA need to seriously take a leaf out of QF managements' book and start wining and dining some journos.
This guy has very clearly been spoon-fed this info from QF or Jetstar management, and has swallowed it hook line and sinker. In exchange, I imagine, for a very nice lunch and a bottle of 1995 St Henri. AIPA need to seriously take a leaf out of QF managements' book and start wining and dining some journos.
From todays afr..
MISSING IN ACTION A number of companies you might think would make our list don't cut the mustard. This is partly because capital-intensive firms and others exposed to the brunt of cyclical businesses find it a challenge to make year-on-year positive returns in shareholder value. Some who don't appear include Qantas chief Geoff Dixon, who has done an extraordinary job dealing with the complicated issues at the carrier but who heads a company that has been destroying shareholder value.
MISSING IN ACTION A number of companies you might think would make our list don't cut the mustard. This is partly because capital-intensive firms and others exposed to the brunt of cyclical businesses find it a challenge to make year-on-year positive returns in shareholder value. Some who don't appear include Qantas chief Geoff Dixon, who has done an extraordinary job dealing with the complicated issues at the carrier but who heads a company that has been destroying shareholder value.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be giving the to that article, hotnhigh. I'm unable to read the full article, but the way it seems to read to me is: that Dixon's doing a great job but it's the rest of us that are holding him back and "destroying shareholder value". 
(How do I turn this thingy upside-down?)
to that article, hotnhigh. I'm unable to read the full article, but the way it seems to read to me is: that Dixon's doing a great job but it's the rest of us that are holding him back and "destroying shareholder value". (How do I turn this
thingy upside-down?)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dutch Roll, its a pity you didnt send a letter in....maybe you could trim it down and send....
Maybe the call should go out to all eager "letters to the editor" writers.....
Can anybody get something published to counter the rubbish being printed?
Maybe the call should go out to all eager "letters to the editor" writers.....
Can anybody get something published to counter the rubbish being printed?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, well I've had letters published before but it gets difficult when responding to a column riddled with rubbish to do a fair and consistent critique in a short enough space for the editor. You can get away with a longer rebuttal if you're someone important, which unfortunately I'm not!
The way this guy writes very much reminds me of columnists like Bolt, Akerman (over whom I had a small but very pleasant victory once), or in The Australian's case, Sheridan. It's regurgitated PR from an interview (or lunch) with their favourite politician or exec with little or no effort to critically scrutinize what they are being told. It's also written arrogantly (eg, 'After failing to interest the AIRC in their case, Qantas pilots ........' - which is complete rubbish to anyone with even a vague knowledge of how events unfolded), and is a dead giveaway that they've set out before the first tap on the keyboard to pursue a certain angle.
I guess that's what you get from opinion columnists, but some of them don't cross-check facts very well before they publish, preferring only the version which suits them. I find it weirdly satisfying trashing their column piece by piece until it lies in tatters (which isn't difficult with the die-hard politically aligned columnists who often argue irrationally or illogically), but it's very hard to get that sort of thing published!
The way this guy writes very much reminds me of columnists like Bolt, Akerman (over whom I had a small but very pleasant victory once), or in The Australian's case, Sheridan. It's regurgitated PR from an interview (or lunch) with their favourite politician or exec with little or no effort to critically scrutinize what they are being told. It's also written arrogantly (eg, 'After failing to interest the AIRC in their case, Qantas pilots ........' - which is complete rubbish to anyone with even a vague knowledge of how events unfolded), and is a dead giveaway that they've set out before the first tap on the keyboard to pursue a certain angle.
I guess that's what you get from opinion columnists, but some of them don't cross-check facts very well before they publish, preferring only the version which suits them. I find it weirdly satisfying trashing their column piece by piece until it lies in tatters (which isn't difficult with the die-hard politically aligned columnists who often argue irrationally or illogically), but it's very hard to get that sort of thing published!
