Chief Pilots potential demise rumours....
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Easter weekend edition of Boss magazine from the Financial Review features an article on leadership by General Peter Cosgrove (former Chief of the Defence Force). He states, in part, "There are other traits essential for a leader: a sense of decency, moral courage, humility and compassion."
Sadly, these elements are lacking in the character makeup of many department heads at Charlie Q.
When the good General is Chairman we may stand a chance of once again becoming respected employees.
Sadly, these elements are lacking in the character makeup of many department heads at Charlie Q.
When the good General is Chairman we may stand a chance of once again becoming respected employees.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Future
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure does! Jamie is one of the most truant board members in Australian corporate history. It stands to reason that things perform alot better when he is away. Look what happened when he really did try at One tel! Pray he stays away for the good of the company. 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can quite confidently say that any rumour circulating in the aviation world about MY imminent demise in the aviation world is untrue and I have the utmost confidence in my own ability.
Originally Posted by bb744
I have the utmost confidence in my own ability.
...but does the board???
Join Date: May 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Horst, I'd have to disagree with you.
This is a RUMOUR network and nothing sais that one rumour is mor deserving of length of time than another.
It also shows that most of the people in QF are sick of the intimidatory manor in which QF management decide to rule.
Every QF pilot I have flown with is ALWAYS professional on the flight deck and would never do anything to jeapordise the operation. That however does not stop each person from being allowed to have a different view (politically or otherwise) on how they believe the company is being run.
Qantas owns our flying hours but not our political thoughts.
Twin.
This is a RUMOUR network and nothing sais that one rumour is mor deserving of length of time than another.
It also shows that most of the people in QF are sick of the intimidatory manor in which QF management decide to rule.
Every QF pilot I have flown with is ALWAYS professional on the flight deck and would never do anything to jeapordise the operation. That however does not stop each person from being allowed to have a different view (politically or otherwise) on how they believe the company is being run.
Qantas owns our flying hours but not our political thoughts.
Twin.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horst, the QF pilot group has no say in the closure, or otherwise of this thread. If they want it to go away, they will stop posting responses. Then it will slip into oblivion. Otherwise, we will let it run its course (unless it gets nasty).
Currently Horst, yours is the first post even remotely resembling support. Another 21% are "junk posts" not even related to the sub ject. The remainder seem to be letting of a bit of steam, which they cannot do in Qrewroom without fear of retribution.
For the time being, thread stays.
Currently Horst, yours is the first post even remotely resembling support. Another 21% are "junk posts" not even related to the sub ject. The remainder seem to be letting of a bit of steam, which they cannot do in Qrewroom without fear of retribution.
For the time being, thread stays.
With the greatest respect, I have to weigh in on the side of the QF staff. One can cheese pare and cheese pare till the cows come home, however by the time you realise that you have cut too deeply the damage is already done.
Cuts in Engineering, pressure on Cabin crew and Pilots, configuration changes to aircraft and so on all add up, but the results may not be seen until there is a catastrophic event.
Readers may note a thread about a diversion to a little known Russian (ok khazakwhatisname) airport after an LHR Bound 747 had a fire warning in the cargo hold.
Anyone care to think about what might happen if the crew is in the middle of an industrial dispute, the aircraft is carrying a few "defects" (such as dodgy tires) and the cabin crew are worn to a shred trying to look after too many pax with too few staff?
When you cheese pare with an airline, you don't get incremental reduction in capacity. Its like a stall, one minute the aircraft is flying, then all of a sudden it isn't. I don't think management understands that.
Translation: The first evidence that maybe you have cut too deep could be a large smoking hole in the ground. Good airlines understand this.
Cuts in Engineering, pressure on Cabin crew and Pilots, configuration changes to aircraft and so on all add up, but the results may not be seen until there is a catastrophic event.
Readers may note a thread about a diversion to a little known Russian (ok khazakwhatisname) airport after an LHR Bound 747 had a fire warning in the cargo hold.
Anyone care to think about what might happen if the crew is in the middle of an industrial dispute, the aircraft is carrying a few "defects" (such as dodgy tires) and the cabin crew are worn to a shred trying to look after too many pax with too few staff?
When you cheese pare with an airline, you don't get incremental reduction in capacity. Its like a stall, one minute the aircraft is flying, then all of a sudden it isn't. I don't think management understands that.
Translation: The first evidence that maybe you have cut too deep could be a large smoking hole in the ground. Good airlines understand this.
Nunc est bibendum
I heard the same rumour on a recent trip. The only thing it was based upon was the possible result of a court case which has a long way to go and a rumour about engagement surveys. Now, I'm no company apologist although I do profess a desire to see QF grow and prosper- much the same as the majority of my colleagues- and in this respect, I have viewed some decisions made a many levels of management (Executive down to Flight Ops) with a significant degree of dismay.
However, I've also see QF pilots as a group bring ourselves undone time and again. We telegraph our punches on Qrewroom without batting an eye lid. We do silly, inane things like defacing a computer screen and making ourselves as a group look like dills. We post a rumour on PPRUNE with no significant foundation and profess extreme delight in the fact that if even half true it shows an airline in a bad way. If it's not true and not based on anything then I stilll despair at the current morale and long term welfare of the pilot group as it shows how poorly we are at the moment.
So peddle it if you must but whilst it may make you feel better in the short term, ultimately it may hurt us all!
Regards,
Keg
However, I've also see QF pilots as a group bring ourselves undone time and again. We telegraph our punches on Qrewroom without batting an eye lid. We do silly, inane things like defacing a computer screen and making ourselves as a group look like dills. We post a rumour on PPRUNE with no significant foundation and profess extreme delight in the fact that if even half true it shows an airline in a bad way. If it's not true and not based on anything then I stilll despair at the current morale and long term welfare of the pilot group as it shows how poorly we are at the moment.
So peddle it if you must but whilst it may make you feel better in the short term, ultimately it may hurt us all!
Regards,
Keg
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
Keg, with due respect, I am not sure how a rumour such as this will influence someones demise or not. Either it is going to happen (if there is truth to the rumour) or it won't. Things will continue, be they for the better or worse.
Trying to disguise the ill feeling within the ranks at QF, is a bit like sticking your head in the sand and hoping it will go away. More to the point, it wont fool anyone.
I too hope for the best at QF, but sadly we havent turned the corner yet, and i fear that turn is still along way off, with our current management.
Trying to disguise the ill feeling within the ranks at QF, is a bit like sticking your head in the sand and hoping it will go away. More to the point, it wont fool anyone.
I too hope for the best at QF, but sadly we havent turned the corner yet, and i fear that turn is still along way off, with our current management.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg,
Whilst you and I share a desire to see the company prosper, as our collective future depends on it, I disagree with your post.
Many of us are only too aware that the current environment is very adversarial, the intimidation less than subtle on many occassions.
One of the chief proponents of this tactic is senior management, ably assisted by elements in Flight operations. Whilst it would appear that "work choices" is something the company would love to use, the legislation makes clear any threats, intimidation or harassment will not be toleratred. Depsite targeting unions overtly the legislation is clear in that you cannot threaten a person due their association with/or representation of a labour organisation.
The punches aren't being telegraphed anymore, which is why some of the players in QCC and indeed corporate are a little annoyed. I believe the direction being taken by the union is consistent and appropriate with respect to the industrial climate and indeed the way the company conducts(and by definition-her managers) itself.
For me, I do not trust management intention. I know the identity of the person making the compliant against( as IW said) the "company" not the individual. I have no doubt that the incident occured and it occured in the way it is alleged. I am aware of the facts.
I have no confidence in the ethics of managment, I belive they have and do use "performance in the simulator" as a tool to control those they deem "loose cannons". As such I will not post on Crew room anything that I believe is legitimate, not personal or defamatory comment about the way the company conducts itself for fear of harassment.
We do control the destiny of the company in our pilot hands. It is management that set a deisred direction, but ultimately we control the execution of that policy. I am sick of the implied threats, the divisive aggressive tactics that ultimately hurt us all in the collective future. Removing elements from the midst that harm our collective desire to see our company prosper is I beleive legitimate. Whilst I continue to fly professionally, I have no belief in the way these uneducated "sheltered workshop" experts conduct themselves. That such behaviour has the tacit approval of management is the scary bit.
Hence the court action. If it is proven that an individual or group did behave as is alleged, then managment in failing to act is liable. It presents an interesting decision should the case be proven. Senior management failing to act implies they not only approve of the conduct, but support it.
To be able to comment on thse matters, without slander and fear of intimidation is a case for optimism, which at our workplace is a long time coming.. Fortunately for us freedom of expression still exists. The rest of the process will be handled in due course by the appropriate entity to handdle such assertions, the legal system.
If the process results in more respect for the contribution to our companies success of the flight crew, excellent. If it removes from our workplace harassment then fantastic. If individuals are held accountable for their conduct and removed from their post, then I believe all the better for all of us
Whilst you and I share a desire to see the company prosper, as our collective future depends on it, I disagree with your post.
Many of us are only too aware that the current environment is very adversarial, the intimidation less than subtle on many occassions.
One of the chief proponents of this tactic is senior management, ably assisted by elements in Flight operations. Whilst it would appear that "work choices" is something the company would love to use, the legislation makes clear any threats, intimidation or harassment will not be toleratred. Depsite targeting unions overtly the legislation is clear in that you cannot threaten a person due their association with/or representation of a labour organisation.
The punches aren't being telegraphed anymore, which is why some of the players in QCC and indeed corporate are a little annoyed. I believe the direction being taken by the union is consistent and appropriate with respect to the industrial climate and indeed the way the company conducts(and by definition-her managers) itself.
For me, I do not trust management intention. I know the identity of the person making the compliant against( as IW said) the "company" not the individual. I have no doubt that the incident occured and it occured in the way it is alleged. I am aware of the facts.
I have no confidence in the ethics of managment, I belive they have and do use "performance in the simulator" as a tool to control those they deem "loose cannons". As such I will not post on Crew room anything that I believe is legitimate, not personal or defamatory comment about the way the company conducts itself for fear of harassment.
We do control the destiny of the company in our pilot hands. It is management that set a deisred direction, but ultimately we control the execution of that policy. I am sick of the implied threats, the divisive aggressive tactics that ultimately hurt us all in the collective future. Removing elements from the midst that harm our collective desire to see our company prosper is I beleive legitimate. Whilst I continue to fly professionally, I have no belief in the way these uneducated "sheltered workshop" experts conduct themselves. That such behaviour has the tacit approval of management is the scary bit.
Hence the court action. If it is proven that an individual or group did behave as is alleged, then managment in failing to act is liable. It presents an interesting decision should the case be proven. Senior management failing to act implies they not only approve of the conduct, but support it.
To be able to comment on thse matters, without slander and fear of intimidation is a case for optimism, which at our workplace is a long time coming.. Fortunately for us freedom of expression still exists. The rest of the process will be handled in due course by the appropriate entity to handdle such assertions, the legal system.
If the process results in more respect for the contribution to our companies success of the flight crew, excellent. If it removes from our workplace harassment then fantastic. If individuals are held accountable for their conduct and removed from their post, then I believe all the better for all of us
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Horst, I'll bite..
I want people that harm the collective removed..the difference is there is due process followed in a court of law. My understanding of a dictator is such that there is no due process.The leagal system I refer to is not controlled by me, nor AIPA. We are following a process that is enshrined by others in order to ascertain whether the behaviour is legitimate or illegal and must be removed from ourt workplace....
I look forward to due process, something dictators do not....
I want people that harm the collective removed..the difference is there is due process followed in a court of law. My understanding of a dictator is such that there is no due process.The leagal system I refer to is not controlled by me, nor AIPA. We are following a process that is enshrined by others in order to ascertain whether the behaviour is legitimate or illegal and must be removed from ourt workplace....
I look forward to due process, something dictators do not....
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insider,
If individuals were held accountable for their conduct, there would be a number of flight crew, including some on the ARG, who would not be employed. Some have had very serious conduct issues in the past and it has been AIPA that has kept them employed.
If you want it in management, you should also want it in the pilot body. It can't be a one way street. The problem is that the union protects to the hilt those who should be evicted from the profession due to unprofessional conduct.
How many knobs have there been over the years that almost the entire crew used to go sick so they didn't have to fly with them. We all know them but have protected them as though it is their god given right to be a Qantas pilot and that should never be taken away.
IMHO the words of the recently departed DCP are essential fodder for all:
"Over the years I have seen pilots do more damage to pilots than any employer could ever dream of doing"
If you are not a hypocrite, you should be demanding the same treatment for all, not just management.
If individuals were held accountable for their conduct, there would be a number of flight crew, including some on the ARG, who would not be employed. Some have had very serious conduct issues in the past and it has been AIPA that has kept them employed.
If you want it in management, you should also want it in the pilot body. It can't be a one way street. The problem is that the union protects to the hilt those who should be evicted from the profession due to unprofessional conduct.
How many knobs have there been over the years that almost the entire crew used to go sick so they didn't have to fly with them. We all know them but have protected them as though it is their god given right to be a Qantas pilot and that should never be taken away.
IMHO the words of the recently departed DCP are essential fodder for all:
"Over the years I have seen pilots do more damage to pilots than any employer could ever dream of doing"
If you are not a hypocrite, you should be demanding the same treatment for all, not just management.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jakethemuss
I am not fully aware of some of the points you made in your previous post, however; you talk of pilots that have previously been represented by AIPA in order to keep their jobs.
If they pay their AIPA % why should they not be entitled to legal representation in a case made against them by the company. If the process was allowed to make its way through our legal system, with the resultant finding allowing them to keep their jobs then why should they not remain employed? If the legal process found they should indeed be removed from their position, as the company may have sought, then the process has also proved itself.
As to your quote of a just departed DCP:
"Over the years I have seen pilots do more damage to pilots than any employer could ever dream of doing"
Could just as easily relate to those who so quickly find a management seat after heading AIPA, to start undoing the work that they started during their tenure as president.
I do however agree that at other times pilots have been their own worst enemies. We shall see how things go from here with the new IR laws in place and the eventual negotiation of EBA 8.
Twin.
I am not fully aware of some of the points you made in your previous post, however; you talk of pilots that have previously been represented by AIPA in order to keep their jobs.
If they pay their AIPA % why should they not be entitled to legal representation in a case made against them by the company. If the process was allowed to make its way through our legal system, with the resultant finding allowing them to keep their jobs then why should they not remain employed? If the legal process found they should indeed be removed from their position, as the company may have sought, then the process has also proved itself.
As to your quote of a just departed DCP:
"Over the years I have seen pilots do more damage to pilots than any employer could ever dream of doing"
Could just as easily relate to those who so quickly find a management seat after heading AIPA, to start undoing the work that they started during their tenure as president.
I do however agree that at other times pilots have been their own worst enemies. We shall see how things go from here with the new IR laws in place and the eventual negotiation of EBA 8.
Twin.
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
Horse schitt, you are right I did post it on here to create whisperings etc, I wanted to find out what the base of the rumour was - refer to my first post - its pretty obvious!
Aside from that, the only person who is trying to stir things up is you.
Aside from that, the only person who is trying to stir things up is you.
The admiral should go before the ship sinks.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is every online pilot forum so full of rubbish?
TwinNDB, have you had any experience with our legal system? You are right in saying that there is due process etc, but unfortunately that takes TIME and MONEY - two things neither AIPA nor Qantas really wants to sacrifice. That is why 'back-door-dealing' has always been the vastly more efficient way of conducting and resolving negotiation. e.g. Settling out of court achieves satisfactory results much faster than sitting in front of a judge. e.g. Diplomatic deal-making by assistants during the coffee breaks rather than during head-of-state summits.
The American style of litigate everything (Be Safe!) isn't the direction we should be encouraging our leaders.
TwinNDB, have you had any experience with our legal system? You are right in saying that there is due process etc, but unfortunately that takes TIME and MONEY - two things neither AIPA nor Qantas really wants to sacrifice. That is why 'back-door-dealing' has always been the vastly more efficient way of conducting and resolving negotiation. e.g. Settling out of court achieves satisfactory results much faster than sitting in front of a judge. e.g. Diplomatic deal-making by assistants during the coffee breaks rather than during head-of-state summits.
The American style of litigate everything (Be Safe!) isn't the direction we should be encouraging our leaders.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor Leadership and Management = Poor Safety Culture
Taken from the Australian Financial Review - Boss Magazine, Vol 7, April 2006, p 64.
"WHAT I AM WORKING ON....
Associate Professor Verena Marshall - Graduate School of Business, Curtin University of Technology.
There is an old saying: 'Doctors bury their mistakes; pilots are buried with them!'...Along with my colleagues Dr Margot Wood (Curtin University) and Dr Robert Dannatt (of Aviation Consultants - Avise and Associates) we are reseraching the organisational factors and managerial processess that impact on safety culture, with a particular focus on airlines. I contend that every crack in an aircraft's fuselage - or error made in an organisation - can be traced back to a chasm in management policy and practice. Data has been gathered from 12 major airlines in Australiasia and South East Asia. From it we are identifying cultural characteristics that reflect companies' resilience to accidents..."
I hope these academics have spoken to a diverse cross section of the QF workforce....
Most QF pilots are afraid to post on their own chat site - Qrewroom....for fear of retribution!!....so I seriously doubt whether the 'reporting culture' characteristic of QF presently is as 'open' as it might otherwise be....
QF management continue to create new and widening 'chasms' everyday....
"WHAT I AM WORKING ON....
Associate Professor Verena Marshall - Graduate School of Business, Curtin University of Technology.
There is an old saying: 'Doctors bury their mistakes; pilots are buried with them!'...Along with my colleagues Dr Margot Wood (Curtin University) and Dr Robert Dannatt (of Aviation Consultants - Avise and Associates) we are reseraching the organisational factors and managerial processess that impact on safety culture, with a particular focus on airlines. I contend that every crack in an aircraft's fuselage - or error made in an organisation - can be traced back to a chasm in management policy and practice. Data has been gathered from 12 major airlines in Australiasia and South East Asia. From it we are identifying cultural characteristics that reflect companies' resilience to accidents..."
I hope these academics have spoken to a diverse cross section of the QF workforce....
Most QF pilots are afraid to post on their own chat site - Qrewroom....for fear of retribution!!....so I seriously doubt whether the 'reporting culture' characteristic of QF presently is as 'open' as it might otherwise be....
QF management continue to create new and widening 'chasms' everyday....