QF JOB CUTS
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ron & Edna Johns
(c) OH&S committees/personnel deciding that MINTIES are not to be permitted in meetings as staff might BREAK A TOOTH 
You are quite correct in your last point. Employees going to that extra effort ain't gonna happen on GD's watch. Have even witnessed some displays of the 'I don't give a stuff how much fuel they want me to save' factor already. I'm not saying that is good. It's simply a morale/respect indicator.
Speaking of flogging food, etc, I've got a bit of a confession BALert. The other day, I drank 1/2 of a large bottle of water on the sector. I took the bottle with the remaining water in it (complete I assume with trace amounts of my own spittle etc) with me off the aeroplane to finish in the hotel room, along with the choccie bar from my otherwise inedible crew snack. I think that actually constituted stealing company property (as the remaining water/food had not yet been relocated in my gullet, which I believe is the crossover line when it becomes your property), but I'm not sure who to turn myself in to. Unfortunately I think it would be rather impractical at this stage to return the property to QF.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 19th May 2006 at 01:00.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old phrase "The Floggings will continue until morale improves." comes to mind.
Assuming that Qantas operates with its usual ineptitude, I make the following predictions:
1) The cost of the redundancies will exceed expectations.
2) Within eighteen months there will be even more middle managers than there are now.
3) Efficency will decline even further for two reasons.
(a) Scared people make poor decisions, now that this move has been announced, little or no work will take place until those people involved have been given their marching orders. As usual, you can expect this will take a considerable time, thus maximising the pain and minimising any gain.
(b) Those that leave will be the wrong people. In large organisations, especialy ossified ones such as Qantas, it is not usual for a person's declared job function to be completely different from their actual function. Thus a person's function may look trivial but be vital or vice versa.
But try telling this to a management consultant to justify your existence and see what happens.
All I can say is "you poor bastards". Nobody deserves to be put through the wringer like this.
Assuming that Qantas operates with its usual ineptitude, I make the following predictions:
1) The cost of the redundancies will exceed expectations.
2) Within eighteen months there will be even more middle managers than there are now.
3) Efficency will decline even further for two reasons.
(a) Scared people make poor decisions, now that this move has been announced, little or no work will take place until those people involved have been given their marching orders. As usual, you can expect this will take a considerable time, thus maximising the pain and minimising any gain.
(b) Those that leave will be the wrong people. In large organisations, especialy ossified ones such as Qantas, it is not usual for a person's declared job function to be completely different from their actual function. Thus a person's function may look trivial but be vital or vice versa.
But try telling this to a management consultant to justify your existence and see what happens.
All I can say is "you poor bastards". Nobody deserves to be put through the wringer like this.
Nunc est bibendum
Mr Gregg warned that labour and fuel now accounted for 60 per cent of Qantas's expenses and the higher fuel bill meant responses other than cost-cutting were limited.
Steve Creedy and Geoff Thomas, I thought you guys were better than this. Why don't you ask the tough questions? Why do you keep allowing the wool to be pulled over your eyes? Do QF fly you somewhere and you feel that 'access' may be in jeopardy if you do go tough?
Last edited by Keg; 19th May 2006 at 03:04.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mars
Age: 20
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More to Come
Heard from a management type that 'at least' one more announcement was expected out of this board meeting. He was coy when pressed for specifics but I think it's fair to say it won't be good. Possibilities?
1) Decision to keep 744 maint. in Oz revisited?
2) Final nail in the 74Classic coffin?
3) Classic 73s?
4) LH CC redundancies? (To be replaced by SH casuals)
Others???????
1) Decision to keep 744 maint. in Oz revisited?
2) Final nail in the 74Classic coffin?
3) Classic 73s?
4) LH CC redundancies? (To be replaced by SH casuals)
Others???????
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that this is a pilot forum, not a management one, but these arguments do get a bit repetitive. The mantra seems to be that everything wrong with the company is the fault of senior management, who are, to a man, grossly overpaid and incompetent. The other overriding theme is that management numbers and salaries must be cut, but at the same time, crew salaries and working conditions should be essentially inviolate. Some posters seem to think that a pilot's job at QANTAS should be a highly paid sinecure until retirement. There are claims that pilots are cheap when compared to their counterparts in the US (although what this has to do with anything at all in an Australian business context is not clear - particularly given the percentage of US majors in Chapter 11 protection).
All this is, with the greatest of respect, largely irrelevant. QANTAS is a private company, whose obligations are to the people who provide the capital to run the business - that is, the debt and equity holders. It is not an employment service for pilots, managers or anyone else. As I pointed out on another thread, the world's airlines collectively lost $6bn last year. Even those that made a profit (such as QANTAS) fell well short of providing an adequate return on equity to the people who invested the money to operate the business. To increase that return, profits must also be increased - which means either more revenue or less costs. So sure, cut management positions and salaries (after all, weren't those very cuts what started this thread?) but please - get your heads out of the sand.
The widely quoted 5000 "management" positions are, as was pointed out above, around 15% of the total workforce. Although all of the top salary earners are in that 15%, are people here seriously suggesting that the other 85% should be untouchable? In an ever more commoditised market, yields are down, costs are up and shareholders aren't getting the return they expect - meaning that they will eventually stop putting money into the business. In the light of all this, to suggest that radical change is not going to be required is simply fantasy.
Oh - any new CEO that might be recruited to replace the current one knows all this too, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for anything to change soon. In my respectful submission, too many of you are shooting the messenger here...Your real problem is with the economics of the airline business in 2006, not with the individuals on the QANTAS executive team who will come and go like any senior management.
just my opinion - after all, everyone's got one!
SW
All this is, with the greatest of respect, largely irrelevant. QANTAS is a private company, whose obligations are to the people who provide the capital to run the business - that is, the debt and equity holders. It is not an employment service for pilots, managers or anyone else. As I pointed out on another thread, the world's airlines collectively lost $6bn last year. Even those that made a profit (such as QANTAS) fell well short of providing an adequate return on equity to the people who invested the money to operate the business. To increase that return, profits must also be increased - which means either more revenue or less costs. So sure, cut management positions and salaries (after all, weren't those very cuts what started this thread?) but please - get your heads out of the sand.
The widely quoted 5000 "management" positions are, as was pointed out above, around 15% of the total workforce. Although all of the top salary earners are in that 15%, are people here seriously suggesting that the other 85% should be untouchable? In an ever more commoditised market, yields are down, costs are up and shareholders aren't getting the return they expect - meaning that they will eventually stop putting money into the business. In the light of all this, to suggest that radical change is not going to be required is simply fantasy.
Oh - any new CEO that might be recruited to replace the current one knows all this too, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for anything to change soon. In my respectful submission, too many of you are shooting the messenger here...Your real problem is with the economics of the airline business in 2006, not with the individuals on the QANTAS executive team who will come and go like any senior management.
just my opinion - after all, everyone's got one!
SW
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Future
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swingwing, we agreed with you right up until they gave themselves 60% payrises for as you put it, for running an under performing company, and then in the next breath, advocating the tightening of belts for the rough weather ahead, and heads will have to roll for the blow out in the fuel price.
Do building companies sack builders when the price of bricks go up? Or do they put the price of the houses they build up? Do bakers get sacked when the price of wheat goes up? Or does the price of a loaf rise? (Pardon the pun).
I seem to remember the justification for the CEOs 60% pay rise was based on what other CEOs in a similar position got, so why shouldn't we compare our salaries with what other pilots get? Whats good for the goose....
They keep telling us "Its all about supply and demand, and market forces", well, so is the supply and demand of skilled labour, and the cost of keeping it or losing it.
We are an essential commodity to the operation of aircraft. As essential as fuel. We are expensive to replace, and impossible to operate without. It would be remiss of us not to keep an eye on the current market value of this commodity.
(JPC pilots exempted from this current market value evaluation of course). 
Do building companies sack builders when the price of bricks go up? Or do they put the price of the houses they build up? Do bakers get sacked when the price of wheat goes up? Or does the price of a loaf rise? (Pardon the pun).
I seem to remember the justification for the CEOs 60% pay rise was based on what other CEOs in a similar position got, so why shouldn't we compare our salaries with what other pilots get? Whats good for the goose....
They keep telling us "Its all about supply and demand, and market forces", well, so is the supply and demand of skilled labour, and the cost of keeping it or losing it.
We are an essential commodity to the operation of aircraft. As essential as fuel. We are expensive to replace, and impossible to operate without. It would be remiss of us not to keep an eye on the current market value of this commodity.
(JPC pilots exempted from this current market value evaluation of course).
Grandpa Aerotart
Agree with Elroy...and to add that airlines have essentially never returned on capital the way other businesses have, banks for instance...never.
I cannot work out why airlines seem the only business that cannot raise prices inline with rising costs...perhaps an indication of the quality of airline management or perhaps there are too many of them...managers and airlines?
As GD says it's a world market...you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
I cannot work out why airlines seem the only business that cannot raise prices inline with rising costs...perhaps an indication of the quality of airline management or perhaps there are too many of them...managers and airlines?
As GD says it's a world market...you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Swingwing
QANTAS is a private company, whose obligations are to the people who provide the capital to run the business - that is, the debt and equity holders.
This is the BIGGEST problem with Qantas. Obligations to investors. Management are forgetting that they also have an obligation to provide safety for those traveling on its planes.
Cut, cut, cut. Where does it end? How much cutting can an airline perform before safety is compromised?
It seems to be getting to this stage now. Sending aircraft to cheap facilities in asia who do a nice spit and polish job, (just dont look behind the panels), employing poorly/inappropriately trained staff in a facility that uses dodgey scaffolding around the aircraft in heavy maintenance, (yes, that's right. Shut down Sydney and transfer to a second rate facility that cannot handle the work.... let's see them claim in a year or so that they cannot support 747 maintenance in Australia, and are forced to send it overseas). Questionable LAME:AME ratios in some facilities, online maintenance manuals that print to paper incomplete instructions...
These are just a few examples in engineering. What about amongst cabin crew? I am sure that there are exaples of cost cutting that could have the potential errode safety standards. Pilots? is the company trying to impliment cost cutting exercises that have the potential to errode safety standards?
The primary obligation of an airline is the safety of its passengers, not to making money for it's shareholders.
It's about time Dicko and his gophers thought about that.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: sydney, australia
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well after reading swingwings opinion i think ill go and offer my services for free, as i am a share holder as well i should make up the loss of wages and conditions in increased dividends and a higher share price. I urge all others that own shares to do likewise.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do building companies sack builders when the price of bricks go up?
The market is very sensitive to movement, and all airlines are trying to ratchet up the price, while maintaining a market let alone market share.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by BHMvictim
I would have thought that Qantas has an obligation FIRST AND FOREMOST to the traveling public, to provide a safe means of getting from A-B.
This is the BIGGEST problem with Qantas. Obligations to investors. Management are forgetting that they also have an obligation to provide safety for those traveling on its planes.
The primary obligation of an airline is the safety of its passengers, not to making money for it's shareholders.
This is the BIGGEST problem with Qantas. Obligations to investors. Management are forgetting that they also have an obligation to provide safety for those traveling on its planes.
The primary obligation of an airline is the safety of its passengers, not to making money for it's shareholders.
Then, there will be various laws which they have to adhere to on an operational basis.
Safety is one of those; but it only hits the directors in terms of: "If we don't comply with this safety rule, either a) we'll get fined, and/or b) there'll be a smoking hole in the ground, either or both of which outcomes will detract from our duties to our shareholders".
S.180 (1) of the Corporations Act 2001 requires that directors "... must exercise their powers and discharge their duties with [a] degree of care and diligence... "; s.181 then specifies that directors must act in good faith in the best interests of the corporation. The duty of 'care' which thus arises out of s.180 is therefore one of care towards the interests of the members of the company - ie. the shareholders.
Safety requirements are then mandated in an operational context.
Interesting paper at http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cclsr/...ors-duties.pdf
As a result, the director's duty is to strip safety to the bone, such that aircraft won't fall out of the sky and by doing so, cost the company money. They're cheating their shareholders if the 'over-engineer'.
Scary, perhaps, but true.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 19th May 2006 at 13:13.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not retrenched, but overstretched
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald (33,Sat 20 May 2006)
Author: Adele Horin
THE survivors of mass retrenchments are not necessarily the lucky ones any more. At Qantas, the staff left behind once the broom sweeps out 1000 managers and support workers over coming months deserve commiseration, not congratulation. If they are not already fully paid-up members of the overworked, overstressed and time-poor brigade, they soon will be.
The latest decision by Qantas to slash labour costs was prompted not by falling demand, or lazy and unproductive managers, but by rising fuel costs and their effect on the bottom line. (All airlines have been hit by the fuel price rise so you have to wonder why Qantas believes it is at some unique competitive disadvantage.) There is not less work to do - but there will be fewer people to do it. And the surviving managers, predictably, will pay a huge personal toll trying to get it all done.
It is yet another example of rhetoric at odds with reality. For most workers, the flexible, family-friendly workplace much trumpeted by government and big business is a mirage. As Australia gets richer, its citizens have more money but less time. In many cases, the choice between the dollar and leisure is not theirs to make. A new survey released this week by Families Australia, a Federal Government-sponsored organisation, shows that most parents and children, given the choice, would opt for more time over money. Time is the missing ingredient in modern life - time for family, friends, community and even sex.
Talk of family-friendly and flexible work has revved up considerably in the recent years of prosperity. But the reality for the "lucky" survivors of the Qantas surgery will be longer work hours, more stress and less time.
Author: Adele Horin
THE survivors of mass retrenchments are not necessarily the lucky ones any more. At Qantas, the staff left behind once the broom sweeps out 1000 managers and support workers over coming months deserve commiseration, not congratulation. If they are not already fully paid-up members of the overworked, overstressed and time-poor brigade, they soon will be.
The latest decision by Qantas to slash labour costs was prompted not by falling demand, or lazy and unproductive managers, but by rising fuel costs and their effect on the bottom line. (All airlines have been hit by the fuel price rise so you have to wonder why Qantas believes it is at some unique competitive disadvantage.) There is not less work to do - but there will be fewer people to do it. And the surviving managers, predictably, will pay a huge personal toll trying to get it all done.
It is yet another example of rhetoric at odds with reality. For most workers, the flexible, family-friendly workplace much trumpeted by government and big business is a mirage. As Australia gets richer, its citizens have more money but less time. In many cases, the choice between the dollar and leisure is not theirs to make. A new survey released this week by Families Australia, a Federal Government-sponsored organisation, shows that most parents and children, given the choice, would opt for more time over money. Time is the missing ingredient in modern life - time for family, friends, community and even sex.
Talk of family-friendly and flexible work has revved up considerably in the recent years of prosperity. But the reality for the "lucky" survivors of the Qantas surgery will be longer work hours, more stress and less time.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Noosa
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEADS DOWN -STAY DOWN !
Walking around the Blue Buildings yesterday bound for the Credit Union, the pall of gloom and despair was everywhere.
The above article in the SMH is very poignant indeed.
This is the time for REAL LEADERSHIP.
Someone ( ? ) needs to rally the troops. Qantas is an ICON , however , it has been gradually belted into submission by the greed of the Financial Institutions and salivating shareholders.
Announcement of eminent job cuts=share price goes up.
Really gives you a warm glow inside.
So, all those Managers( including Darth ), come out of the shadows of your work stations and orifices. Get us together, tell us how it is and at least give us some sort of insight as to how the RAT will look in 5 years time-NOT the usual spin and psychobabble that we are subjected to via the QANTAS NEWS.
www
The above article in the SMH is very poignant indeed.
This is the time for REAL LEADERSHIP.
Someone ( ? ) needs to rally the troops. Qantas is an ICON , however , it has been gradually belted into submission by the greed of the Financial Institutions and salivating shareholders.
Announcement of eminent job cuts=share price goes up.
Really gives you a warm glow inside.
So, all those Managers( including Darth ), come out of the shadows of your work stations and orifices. Get us together, tell us how it is and at least give us some sort of insight as to how the RAT will look in 5 years time-NOT the usual spin and psychobabble that we are subjected to via the QANTAS NEWS.
www
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few predictions:
1. The cost of the redundancies and retrenchments will exceed budget.
2. Within 18 months, there will be more managers then there are now.
3. No work will occur in middle management circles while this policy is afoot. Frightened people don't do much work.
4. The "wrong" people will go, as usual, leaving a traumatised group to pick up the pieces after being told "work smarter not harder'.
As for Swingy's idea that the Board has every right to pursue this policy in the name of shareholder value, I respectfully suggest that this is bassackwards.
The share price reflects the amount of dividend and a premium for future growth. If the return on shareholderrs funds doesn't meet shareholder expectations then the share price falls until it does.
ie: 5% expectation, $10,00 shareprice = $0.50 dividend
!0% expectation $5.00 share price = $0.50 dividend
All other things being equal, the share price follows the dividend not the other way around. I will not explain the capital asset pricing model here.
Qantas also has some stakeholders that Qantas (and its shareholders) ignore at their peril. These include:
- The travelling public, who have, through Government, given Qf a licence to operate safe, timely RPT.
_ The general public, who have granted Qantas an effective monopoly position by keeping out other airlines "In the public interest".
Furthermore, Qantas has an effect on the general economy through the tourism industry, not to mention an effect on the balance of payments through its purchase of aircraft.
- Then there is the Defence case.
- The of course there are the employees, many of whom have given their lives to acquiring highly specific aviation related skills that are marketable to Qantas and not much else.
So yes, if Qantas decides that its only responsibility is to its shareholders, then the Government and the Australian public can rightly conclude that they have no responsibility for Qantas and open the skies to Emirates, Singapore Airlines, and anyone else who wants to come.
You can't have it both ways.
1. The cost of the redundancies and retrenchments will exceed budget.
2. Within 18 months, there will be more managers then there are now.
3. No work will occur in middle management circles while this policy is afoot. Frightened people don't do much work.
4. The "wrong" people will go, as usual, leaving a traumatised group to pick up the pieces after being told "work smarter not harder'.
As for Swingy's idea that the Board has every right to pursue this policy in the name of shareholder value, I respectfully suggest that this is bassackwards.
The share price reflects the amount of dividend and a premium for future growth. If the return on shareholderrs funds doesn't meet shareholder expectations then the share price falls until it does.
ie: 5% expectation, $10,00 shareprice = $0.50 dividend
!0% expectation $5.00 share price = $0.50 dividend
All other things being equal, the share price follows the dividend not the other way around. I will not explain the capital asset pricing model here.
Qantas also has some stakeholders that Qantas (and its shareholders) ignore at their peril. These include:
- The travelling public, who have, through Government, given Qf a licence to operate safe, timely RPT.
_ The general public, who have granted Qantas an effective monopoly position by keeping out other airlines "In the public interest".
Furthermore, Qantas has an effect on the general economy through the tourism industry, not to mention an effect on the balance of payments through its purchase of aircraft.
- Then there is the Defence case.
- The of course there are the employees, many of whom have given their lives to acquiring highly specific aviation related skills that are marketable to Qantas and not much else.
So yes, if Qantas decides that its only responsibility is to its shareholders, then the Government and the Australian public can rightly conclude that they have no responsibility for Qantas and open the skies to Emirates, Singapore Airlines, and anyone else who wants to come.
You can't have it both ways.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Darth has absolutely no interest in "coming out of the shadows" and engaging or communicating with staff. Had him on board a flight recently down to Melbourne - apparently. Didn't find out until after we were at the gate in Melbourne and all pax were off. Nobody told us, nor did he even bother to stick his head in at the end to say "how's it going, boys?" or "nice flight, guys".
That tells me something about our leader.
Very disappointed.
That tells me something about our leader.
Very disappointed.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've got to be f@#king kidding??
Quote- "That tells me something about our leader."
-------------
By definition, a "leader" provides leadership.
It isn't funny, especially for those of us at the rat, to suggest that there could be a possible link between the words "dixon" , "leadership" and "Qantas"........
-------------
By definition, a "leader" provides leadership.
It isn't funny, especially for those of us at the rat, to suggest that there could be a possible link between the words "dixon" , "leadership" and "Qantas"........
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cmon Speedbirdhouse, look carefully and you just might detect my sarcasm in my use of the word "leader". And I work the rat too - Dixon doesn't fly DJ as far as I know. Never intended anyone find my post funny. On the contraire.
Turbo5B - hmmm, interesting idea, I guess. But surely you're not thinking I fly A320's into AVV do you? That'd be implying that out leader flies Y-Class and scrambles for his seat!
No, 737's, my friend, out of Brisvegas.
Turbo5B - hmmm, interesting idea, I guess. But surely you're not thinking I fly A320's into AVV do you? That'd be implying that out leader flies Y-Class and scrambles for his seat!
No, 737's, my friend, out of Brisvegas.