Fuel pressure on Qantas
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SE Aus
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slimmac,
I agree! I think it's terrible that QF make profit back from their staff, particularly those who use Staff Travel to commute to and from work. I know it may universally unpopular, but as a commuter, I'd love to see QF exempt commuters from paying the surcharge on their way to/from work. Small consolation when you think some fellas are spending $100+ each way in Home Transport on their way to work from the Sydney extremities, whilst our Staff Travel tickets are worth half that!!
VI
I agree! I think it's terrible that QF make profit back from their staff, particularly those who use Staff Travel to commute to and from work. I know it may universally unpopular, but as a commuter, I'd love to see QF exempt commuters from paying the surcharge on their way to/from work. Small consolation when you think some fellas are spending $100+ each way in Home Transport on their way to work from the Sydney extremities, whilst our Staff Travel tickets are worth half that!!
VI
QANTAS EXPANDING INTO RAIL??????????? Didn't Margaret Jackson learn anything from John Roses's lectures on Economics?
Qantas has no expereince in rail. The Qantas Board has no experience in Rail. Qantas management has no expereince in rail.
Where is the defendable competitive advantage? What skills does Qantas bring to rail that do not already exist there? Is there a secret freight siding at YSSY?
I actually had a few tank cars in my first job, and I watched rail mechanics literally "get a bigger hammer" to fix things.
As a McKinsey bloke confided - companies that make above average returns focus on only one market. If they focus on two or more, the Board will inevitably make bad investement decisions because of the internal competition for funds.
Look at BHP and Magma copper, and the subsequent restructuring of BHP into separate businesses with totally seperate Boards and funding.
Qantas has no expereince in rail. The Qantas Board has no experience in Rail. Qantas management has no expereince in rail.
Where is the defendable competitive advantage? What skills does Qantas bring to rail that do not already exist there? Is there a secret freight siding at YSSY?
I actually had a few tank cars in my first job, and I watched rail mechanics literally "get a bigger hammer" to fix things.
As a McKinsey bloke confided - companies that make above average returns focus on only one market. If they focus on two or more, the Board will inevitably make bad investement decisions because of the internal competition for funds.
Look at BHP and Magma copper, and the subsequent restructuring of BHP into separate businesses with totally seperate Boards and funding.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victor India complains about the cost of Staff Travel for commuters. If I were VI, I would shut up and bear it as a price for being able to enjoy life away from Sydney. There is an argument that use of Staff Travel by commuting crew is prima facie against Staff Travel policy as Staff Travel is not to be used for commercial or business purposes. If travel to work to earn a living by selling your skills is not a commercial/business practice, tell me that it's not! Acceptance of commuting for many years will probably not change the Qantas position but why should commuters gain benfeits that aren't avialable to the vast mass of Qantas staff who reside in the SYdney area. Their travel to and from work is not subsided by the Airline.
There is also another issue that I won't raise as it could alert others but all people eligible for Staff Travel do need to be circumspect about its availability and benefits - many who are not elegible are quite envious of those who are.
There is also another issue that I won't raise as it could alert others but all people eligible for Staff Travel do need to be circumspect about its availability and benefits - many who are not elegible are quite envious of those who are.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SE Aus
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B A Lert,
This thread is wandering I know but I'd like to respond to your post.
I do appreciate having access to Staff Travel.
Qantas ALREADY subsidises thousands of it's non-commuting crew every week to get to and from work. It's called HOME TRANSPORT!
I wasn't comparing commuters to "the vast majority" - I was comparing them to other crew who rack up bills which can run into many thousands of dollars per head per year. In this case, the company doesn't just "subsidise" the travel - it pays the whole thing. As a commuter, I've not yet spent one cent of this "Home Transport" entitlement. A small subsidy (your word not mine) to commuters by way of an exemption from the fuel levy would not cost the airline anything and would bring some balance to the current situation.
I'm not after any larger chunk of the company's budget for myself or other commuters, just some balance.
Also, I believe your comments about Staff Travel by commuters possibly being against policy are unfounded. You said
According to the Australian Taxation Office, the cost of travelling to/from work is a private expense, which is why it cannot be claimed as an income tax deduction. In that light, I think it's hard to argue that using Staff Travel to get to/from work is "commercial/business practice". I wish it was - then I could claim it as a deduction...
Anyway - I'll get off that soapbox and what was the thread topic again? Oh yeah - "Fuel Pressure on Qantas"...
This thread is wandering I know but I'd like to respond to your post.
I do appreciate having access to Staff Travel.
why should commuters gain benfeits that aren't avialable to the vast mass of Qantas staff who reside in the SYdney area. Their travel to and from work is not subsided by the Airline.
I wasn't comparing commuters to "the vast majority" - I was comparing them to other crew who rack up bills which can run into many thousands of dollars per head per year. In this case, the company doesn't just "subsidise" the travel - it pays the whole thing. As a commuter, I've not yet spent one cent of this "Home Transport" entitlement. A small subsidy (your word not mine) to commuters by way of an exemption from the fuel levy would not cost the airline anything and would bring some balance to the current situation.
I'm not after any larger chunk of the company's budget for myself or other commuters, just some balance.
Also, I believe your comments about Staff Travel by commuters possibly being against policy are unfounded. You said
There is an argument that use of Staff Travel by commuting crew is prima facie against Staff Travel policy as Staff Travel is not to be used for commercial or business purposes. If travel to work to earn a living by selling your skills is not a commercial/business practice, tell me that it's not!
Anyway - I'll get off that soapbox and what was the thread topic again? Oh yeah - "Fuel Pressure on Qantas"...
Last edited by Victor India; 5th May 2006 at 04:10.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VI...it's all about choice. If you choose to live in the vicinity of Sydney, you too can enjoy the full benefits of your Terms and Conditions, as do many many of your colleagues. No one is preventing this, and you can rectify the position but as you chose to live elsewhere, then you have to be prepared to offset the pros of one with the cons of the other. It's really quite simple.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VI: "As a commuter, I've not yet spent one cent of this "Home Transport" entitlement."
If you choose not live in the prescribed area, then you have no entitlement.
So what are you complaining about?
If you choose not live in the prescribed area, then you have no entitlement.
So what are you complaining about?
