Qantas must break unions: Ryanair co-founder
**Rant Alert**
I am getting so sick of hearing this cr@p from airline management!
There are 3 groups of people whom without you have no airline to manage;
Pilots
Flight Attendants
Engineers
If the management don't show up for a week (Xmas every year), does the whole show grind to a halt? No!
If the pilots, flighties and gingerbeers don't show for a day......
I hope to live to see the day when an airline management team realise this and treat the above with the respect they deserve.
For if they all walk, then the management are out on their shiney arses as well.
For too long we have had to put up with the management attitude of;
"You are lucky that we run this airline so that you have job"
Faaark off!
I think that the reverse would be more appropriate! No pilots, no airline to run
Con
**Rant over**
I am getting so sick of hearing this cr@p from airline management!
There are 3 groups of people whom without you have no airline to manage;
Pilots
Flight Attendants
Engineers
If the management don't show up for a week (Xmas every year), does the whole show grind to a halt? No!
If the pilots, flighties and gingerbeers don't show for a day......
I hope to live to see the day when an airline management team realise this and treat the above with the respect they deserve.
For if they all walk, then the management are out on their shiney arses as well.
For too long we have had to put up with the management attitude of;
"You are lucky that we run this airline so that you have job"
Faaark off!
I think that the reverse would be more appropriate! No pilots, no airline to run
Con
**Rant over**
The non management staff of Qantas consist of many people other than pilots, fa's and engineers who are also getting screwed over. It would be nice if that was remembered every now and again.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 99
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of those 30,000 people would gain employment with airlines that would replace Qantas. Of course some of those people would choose to retire. But any airline that was to replace Qantas would have much lower operating costs and therefore be able to offer cheaper fares thus enabling more people to fly and increasing demand in various sectors of the economy, more so than what is happening with Qantas right now. Pure and simple economics!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: .
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect Wonderworld, I am aware of that and am aware of what a fine job you do. I have family and friends in the departments you speak of.
However, it is always the group of 3 that I mention that are under the greatest scrutiny regarding performance, efficiency and salary. You know, the "fillum star wages" we earn etc.
I reiterate, without the pilots, flighties and engineers, you have nothing!
In no way do I say this to deminish your importance in the network, only to try to highlight ours.
None of those in the bullsh!t castle can get an aeroplane from A to B and maybe onto C.
Cheers,
Con
However, it is always the group of 3 that I mention that are under the greatest scrutiny regarding performance, efficiency and salary. You know, the "fillum star wages" we earn etc.
I reiterate, without the pilots, flighties and engineers, you have nothing!
In no way do I say this to deminish your importance in the network, only to try to highlight ours.
None of those in the bullsh!t castle can get an aeroplane from A to B and maybe onto C.
Cheers,
Con
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 99
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noip, I'm sorry to say this but you exhibit naivity in the extreme. Do you really think that any new airline would pay the same rates as Qantas does? Or support the massive structure that Qantas does? You would find that everything would be outsourced and this is where the efficiencies would come into play. Thus the cost savings.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scumfish,
I have recently left a position in QF after 20 yrs (15 as a LAME). It took me approx two weeks to find a position outside of aviation earning the same money.( I probably could have get more if I was willing/able to travel to WA/QLD)
If QF or Jetstar think that they are going to employ new people on lower wages then the only way they will be able to do this is by reducing the average skill level/experience of the people they employ. The skilled experienced people will have no problem securing other employment elsewhere for the same money or more.
The cost savings for outsourcing are miniscule and illusory at best in the long term(sure it looks great in the short term).
I will consider moving back to aviation, only when I can get more than I am currently earning and there is some career progression available(supply and demand). I'm not holding my breath though!!!
I have recently left a position in QF after 20 yrs (15 as a LAME). It took me approx two weeks to find a position outside of aviation earning the same money.( I probably could have get more if I was willing/able to travel to WA/QLD)
If QF or Jetstar think that they are going to employ new people on lower wages then the only way they will be able to do this is by reducing the average skill level/experience of the people they employ. The skilled experienced people will have no problem securing other employment elsewhere for the same money or more.
The cost savings for outsourcing are miniscule and illusory at best in the long term(sure it looks great in the short term).
I will consider moving back to aviation, only when I can get more than I am currently earning and there is some career progression available(supply and demand). I'm not holding my breath though!!!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
Therefore , according to your warped and uninformed view , it must have been a wonderful thing for the Australian economy for Ansett to collapse and 15,000 jobs go as this would have produced more than 15,000 jobs somewhere else.
You poor fool.
Therefore , according to your warped and uninformed view , it must have been a wonderful thing for the Australian economy for Ansett to collapse and 15,000 jobs go as this would have produced more than 15,000 jobs somewhere else.
You poor fool.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've left last April after 21 yrs (Avionics). Trying to move into IT.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish..aka Scumfish,Gilligan,CEO of SIA..et al...
As Enema bandits dad and Hanoi mentioned if your economic theory was correct the Australian economy would have gone ahead in leaps and bounds when Ansett went under and their staff found themselves out on the street.
There are small countries/Ilsands .....sort of like Singapore that would be pushed into recession if one of their employers went under and 30,000 jobs were lost.
Just because Ansett went down the tube you are besotted with Qantas .Your economic theory is nothing more than a sick joke just like you.
Go back to the yacht club gilligan and have another Singapore sling ,it is probably the only time when your theory makes sense
As Enema bandits dad and Hanoi mentioned if your economic theory was correct the Australian economy would have gone ahead in leaps and bounds when Ansett went under and their staff found themselves out on the street.
There are small countries/Ilsands .....sort of like Singapore that would be pushed into recession if one of their employers went under and 30,000 jobs were lost.
Just because Ansett went down the tube you are besotted with Qantas .Your economic theory is nothing more than a sick joke just like you.
Go back to the yacht club gilligan and have another Singapore sling ,it is probably the only time when your theory makes sense
Exactly the reverse Hanoi. Ansetts demise meant that there was one less competitor, so not only did the Ansett jobs go, but more jobs would have gone when Qantas jacked up prices in response to Ansetts demise.
Free Markets and Free trade = more competiton = more efficiencies = better prices, more jobs.
My recollection is that someone got the Nobel Prize for proving this, and the Australian economy today is a shining example of what free trade does.
Of course we have at least two remaining problems - Telstra and Qantas, both of whom are warts on the bum of economic progress.
Free Markets and Free trade = more competiton = more efficiencies = better prices, more jobs.
My recollection is that someone got the Nobel Prize for proving this, and the Australian economy today is a shining example of what free trade does.
Of course we have at least two remaining problems - Telstra and Qantas, both of whom are warts on the bum of economic progress.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Free Markets and Free trade = more competiton = more efficiencies = better prices, more jobs."
There is not an economy on earth that operates without some sort of protection or barrier from absolute competition, a mystical phenomenon that technically would produce zero profit.
QF (and most flag carriers) exists today because of Government policy that may have been appropriate at some point of time in history but without which we would not see the rat as it is today.
QF would struggle to survive even in todays market were it not for various protections offered by the Australian Government both in policy and (often subtle) practice.
QF (like most incumbents) is struggling to adapt to a changing market where the dominant carriers are no longer European and American but Asian and Middle Eastern with much more flexible work place practices than carriers in highly unionised countires such as Australia.
Comp and Benefits are only a minor issue when compared to the "job building" that has been the norm in carriers such as QF (and Ansett). Take a look at flight ops in agile carriers such as Southwest where staff (such as pilots) can in some cases earn more than thier counterparts at major carriers and yet offer efficincies far beyond those acheivable at Delta/United etc.
Can anyone explain why S/O's make sense?
There is not an economy on earth that operates without some sort of protection or barrier from absolute competition, a mystical phenomenon that technically would produce zero profit.
QF (and most flag carriers) exists today because of Government policy that may have been appropriate at some point of time in history but without which we would not see the rat as it is today.
QF would struggle to survive even in todays market were it not for various protections offered by the Australian Government both in policy and (often subtle) practice.
QF (like most incumbents) is struggling to adapt to a changing market where the dominant carriers are no longer European and American but Asian and Middle Eastern with much more flexible work place practices than carriers in highly unionised countires such as Australia.
Comp and Benefits are only a minor issue when compared to the "job building" that has been the norm in carriers such as QF (and Ansett). Take a look at flight ops in agile carriers such as Southwest where staff (such as pilots) can in some cases earn more than thier counterparts at major carriers and yet offer efficincies far beyond those acheivable at Delta/United etc.
Can anyone explain why S/O's make sense?
Grandpa Aerotart
The main problem with free market theories is that they rarely work in the real world...the people running things HATE competition and do all in their power to destroy competition in the short term so they can reap the benefits long term...the current mania of M&A is an example of this.
Outsourcing is a sick joke...generally speaking the only way to justify outsourcing is to artificially jack up the percieved costs of keeping it in house to make it look like huge savings can be made...I have seen it happen first hand and the justifications were easily countered with reality...the reality was ignored by 'management' and they went ahead anyway with predictable results.
Short term results from unfettered access across the pacific might benefit consumers to some degree but in the end it would likely return to the status quo as competitors dropped out and returned assetts to routes where better margins existed.
Look at what happened when VB came into the Australian market to 'keep the air fair'...we still have an effective 'two airline' situation, if not policy.
Outsourcing is a sick joke...generally speaking the only way to justify outsourcing is to artificially jack up the percieved costs of keeping it in house to make it look like huge savings can be made...I have seen it happen first hand and the justifications were easily countered with reality...the reality was ignored by 'management' and they went ahead anyway with predictable results.
Short term results from unfettered access across the pacific might benefit consumers to some degree but in the end it would likely return to the status quo as competitors dropped out and returned assetts to routes where better margins existed.
Look at what happened when VB came into the Australian market to 'keep the air fair'...we still have an effective 'two airline' situation, if not policy.
I actually have an MBA and was lectured at endless lengths about economics and by business "leaders", some of which remain out of jail to this day.
The trouble is guys, there is a name for what you want when you say: "Qantas is a special case", "Qantas is different", "Aviation markets are different".
The technical economic name is "rent seeking behaviour" or as a Ministers staff would put it "special pleading".
Now all of you are correct when you say that no market is perfect, but you neatly miss the point of the argument; that is that the more perfect the free market, the better the price and the more efficient it is, and the more beneficial to the economy it is. I'm afraid that you cannot escape this.
Furthermore, and with great respect, the more shrill you become about how Qantas is different, how your competitors are subsidised by Government etc., etc, the sillier you sound.
Take cars for an example again. There is a world wide glut of car manufacturing capacity. Cars like Ssang Yong, Hyundai, Proton and god knows what else are selling for next to no profit at all. Now do you see people passing up these cheap cars to buy a Holden or a Falcon? Of course not! That would be stupid! Buy the cheap car and spend the money elsewhere in the economy! I think it was John Nash (They made a film about him - A Beautiful Mind) who won the Nobel Prize for Economics by proving that everyone was better off by free trade.
It is axiomatic that everybody benefits from cheaper and more efficient production. Arguing anything less is just plain stupid and will get you absolutely nowhere.Furthermore the entire Australian economy, with the exception of Telstra and Qantas, has had to go through the process of coping with international competition and its about time it was your turn- its only fair. Do I see you guys turn down the $99.00 Chinese generator at Bunnings in favour of buying the $600.00 Australian equivalent? Nah!
To put it yet another way, would I pay $30.00 for a pizza when I can go to a shop a few blocks away and pay $6.00 for the same pizza, and, since your leaders and the likes of Ryanair think air travel is a commodity just like wheat or oil or iron ore, what do you expect? If Singapore or Calathumpia will sell us air travel for less than the cost of production then we are fools not to take it. We can always rebuild an airline if the price of travel rises above the investment necessary to own another Australian airline and the free market will ensure that there will be many companies eager to sell us the tools for "Qantas II"
The only possible justification for protecting Qantas in some form is National defence capability ---but of course Qantas is shooting down that argument by outsourcing its maintenance and overhaul facilities isn't it?
And I'm waiting for someone to say there is something "special" about Qantas. There was something "special" about Ansett and you gladly watched that go to the wall. Why shouldn't you get exactly the same fate or worse?
The trouble is guys, there is a name for what you want when you say: "Qantas is a special case", "Qantas is different", "Aviation markets are different".
The technical economic name is "rent seeking behaviour" or as a Ministers staff would put it "special pleading".
Now all of you are correct when you say that no market is perfect, but you neatly miss the point of the argument; that is that the more perfect the free market, the better the price and the more efficient it is, and the more beneficial to the economy it is. I'm afraid that you cannot escape this.
Furthermore, and with great respect, the more shrill you become about how Qantas is different, how your competitors are subsidised by Government etc., etc, the sillier you sound.
Take cars for an example again. There is a world wide glut of car manufacturing capacity. Cars like Ssang Yong, Hyundai, Proton and god knows what else are selling for next to no profit at all. Now do you see people passing up these cheap cars to buy a Holden or a Falcon? Of course not! That would be stupid! Buy the cheap car and spend the money elsewhere in the economy! I think it was John Nash (They made a film about him - A Beautiful Mind) who won the Nobel Prize for Economics by proving that everyone was better off by free trade.
It is axiomatic that everybody benefits from cheaper and more efficient production. Arguing anything less is just plain stupid and will get you absolutely nowhere.Furthermore the entire Australian economy, with the exception of Telstra and Qantas, has had to go through the process of coping with international competition and its about time it was your turn- its only fair. Do I see you guys turn down the $99.00 Chinese generator at Bunnings in favour of buying the $600.00 Australian equivalent? Nah!
To put it yet another way, would I pay $30.00 for a pizza when I can go to a shop a few blocks away and pay $6.00 for the same pizza, and, since your leaders and the likes of Ryanair think air travel is a commodity just like wheat or oil or iron ore, what do you expect? If Singapore or Calathumpia will sell us air travel for less than the cost of production then we are fools not to take it. We can always rebuild an airline if the price of travel rises above the investment necessary to own another Australian airline and the free market will ensure that there will be many companies eager to sell us the tools for "Qantas II"
The only possible justification for protecting Qantas in some form is National defence capability ---but of course Qantas is shooting down that argument by outsourcing its maintenance and overhaul facilities isn't it?
And I'm waiting for someone to say there is something "special" about Qantas. There was something "special" about Ansett and you gladly watched that go to the wall. Why shouldn't you get exactly the same fate or worse?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure, but I suspect that you mis-understand the role of the S/O - at least in QF.
They are included on QF long haul crews because the crew for that particular sector requires 3 or 4 pilots (Flight time duty limitations dictated by CASA). As an alternative to paying an additional F/O or two, QF employs Second Officers at a lower rate of pay - they have lower licencing requirements. Effectively, they are "cruise F/Os".
So for the airline, S/O pilots make sense - the airline gets the required pilot numbers at a lower pay rate. When they need additional F/Os, then they train / licence the required number of S/Os and only then need to pay the higher pay rate.
Hope this helps ..
N
They are included on QF long haul crews because the crew for that particular sector requires 3 or 4 pilots (Flight time duty limitations dictated by CASA). As an alternative to paying an additional F/O or two, QF employs Second Officers at a lower rate of pay - they have lower licencing requirements. Effectively, they are "cruise F/Os".
So for the airline, S/O pilots make sense - the airline gets the required pilot numbers at a lower pay rate. When they need additional F/Os, then they train / licence the required number of S/Os and only then need to pay the higher pay rate.
Hope this helps ..
N
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for national defence capability, always handy to be able to pick up the phone and call someone when you need to move lots of troops in a hurry. Too bad if the country you're at war with owns your national carrier! Don't worry though, Johnny has his BBJ's overhauled by Qantas at Tulla. Apparently it's O.K. for the great unwashed to have their aircraft maintained at some cheap Chinese or Philipino MRO but, the PM likes a bit of peace of mind in knowing that at least his aircraft is maintained to the highest standards.
As for globalisation. If the economy isn't for the good of the people that are in it, what is it there for? The greed of overseas investors? This country can afford as much globalisation as it's prepared to pay for in social security payments.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LME-400,
I am now working for the a subcontractor to the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO or Department of Defence ). They have so much money they can't spend it fast enough and they have such a chronic shortage of skilled staff that its not funny.
Try Kinetic Defence for a source of jobs in the Defence industry(you have to find a cushy office job though- the defence industry doesn't pay much for people on the tools- it sucks!!The money has to flow through too many pairs of hands befrore it gets to the worker due to outsourcing to various subcontractors and their sub-subcontractors)
The Navy spent the better part of 1980-90's outsourcing all their maintenance work to outside industry. As a result they now have very few people who know how to plan or carry out maintenance on their ships and it truly is a national disgrace(sound familiar!!) To the point that they now have to employ people who have spent 20 years fixing aeroplanes to fix their ships. It's f#$king ridiculous but who am I to argue!! I will just go to where the money / opportunities are!! THAT'S PROGRESS!!
The point of all this is that QF will produce a profit in the vicinity of $1Billion dollars profit for this year with a unionised workforce. Outsourcing will replace that highly experienced workforce with a subcontractor with a new management level and a workforce with little experience. As a result they will suffer from quality issues as people in QF maint already know. They will not(and already cannot) attract quality people to their organsations and their product will suffer as it already is.
What would the Ryanair co-founder know about Australian industrial relations anway?????? Especially when the company concerned is one of the most profitable airlines in the world????
It is interesting that Emma Alberici (the journelist)used to work for a current Qantas director and her line of questioning was fairly loaded. Maybe I'm being overly cynical in thinking that our dear Emma might be looking to keep in good with a former and future employer and media magnate.
I am now working for the a subcontractor to the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO or Department of Defence ). They have so much money they can't spend it fast enough and they have such a chronic shortage of skilled staff that its not funny.
Try Kinetic Defence for a source of jobs in the Defence industry(you have to find a cushy office job though- the defence industry doesn't pay much for people on the tools- it sucks!!The money has to flow through too many pairs of hands befrore it gets to the worker due to outsourcing to various subcontractors and their sub-subcontractors)
The Navy spent the better part of 1980-90's outsourcing all their maintenance work to outside industry. As a result they now have very few people who know how to plan or carry out maintenance on their ships and it truly is a national disgrace(sound familiar!!) To the point that they now have to employ people who have spent 20 years fixing aeroplanes to fix their ships. It's f#$king ridiculous but who am I to argue!! I will just go to where the money / opportunities are!! THAT'S PROGRESS!!
The point of all this is that QF will produce a profit in the vicinity of $1Billion dollars profit for this year with a unionised workforce. Outsourcing will replace that highly experienced workforce with a subcontractor with a new management level and a workforce with little experience. As a result they will suffer from quality issues as people in QF maint already know. They will not(and already cannot) attract quality people to their organsations and their product will suffer as it already is.
What would the Ryanair co-founder know about Australian industrial relations anway?????? Especially when the company concerned is one of the most profitable airlines in the world????
It is interesting that Emma Alberici (the journelist)used to work for a current Qantas director and her line of questioning was fairly loaded. Maybe I'm being overly cynical in thinking that our dear Emma might be looking to keep in good with a former and future employer and media magnate.
Last edited by numbskull; 21st Jan 2007 at 11:24.
