Concern For Qantas.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concern For Qantas.
Concern for Qantas
Skynews 3-2-2007
There's mounting concern within Federal Government ranks over the proposed takeover bid of Qantas.
It's been revealed senior Qantas executives will receive bonuses of up to $300 million if the consortium's bid for the airline goes ahead.
Airline Partners Australia released its bidder's statement yesterday, vowing to keep the company majority Australian owned and run.
Shareholders have until March 9 to respond to the offer of $5.60 a share.
But as details of the acquisition emerge, a number of high profile MPs have already made it clear they're nervous.
The consortium has indicated it wont be seeking federal approval for the $11 billion takeover unless its forced to do so by the Government.
It has also since confirmed 11 Qantas executives will do exceptionally well if the bid is approved, with the consortium promising incentives equal to a 4.5 per cent share in the airline.
Skynews 3-2-2007
There's mounting concern within Federal Government ranks over the proposed takeover bid of Qantas.
It's been revealed senior Qantas executives will receive bonuses of up to $300 million if the consortium's bid for the airline goes ahead.
Airline Partners Australia released its bidder's statement yesterday, vowing to keep the company majority Australian owned and run.
Shareholders have until March 9 to respond to the offer of $5.60 a share.
But as details of the acquisition emerge, a number of high profile MPs have already made it clear they're nervous.
The consortium has indicated it wont be seeking federal approval for the $11 billion takeover unless its forced to do so by the Government.
It has also since confirmed 11 Qantas executives will do exceptionally well if the bid is approved, with the consortium promising incentives equal to a 4.5 per cent share in the airline.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The truth is starting to filter out!
More question for the Texas Pacific bid on Qantas
Letters to the editor, AFR, Saturday 3rd February 2007
What is the real agenda of the private equity consortium bidding for Qantas? This is the question now being asked by Garry Weaven, executive chairman of the industry superannuation leader Industry Funds Management.
This same question was asked in 2005 by the citizens of Oregon in the United States when a Texas Pacific consortium bid for their electric utility. (Texas Pacific is the powerful US member of the private equity consortium bidding for Qantas).
After a lengthy legal wrangle Oregon obtained Texas Pacific's secret internal analysis. This was reported to reveal that crucial elements of the consortium's public pronouncements were directly at contradictory to the analysis.
No wonder Texas Pacific fought so hard to keep the analysis secret. The public pronouncements by the Texas Pacific consortium in the Oregon bid sound similar to those recently made in Australia by the consortium bidding for Qantas.
Here's a sample of the substance of some of the consortium's claims as reported in Oregon's Willamette Week(May 1,2005)
- Business as usual, there will be no wholesale lay-offs of employees: the secret analysis showed planned wholesale lay-offs and dramatic cuts in maintenance.
- Texas Pacific was a patient investor for the long haul; the secret analysis showed that Texas Pacific planned to sell in five years.
- The Oregon electric utility was extremely well run and there would be few changes; the secret analysis showed that Texas Pacific considered that the utility was anything but well run and there would be a lot of changes.
This was a great shock to Texas Pacific, as it was contemplated that approval would be given with conditions. With a striking lesson for Australia the commission identified "several sources of harm".
"the primary source" of harm was the proposal to finance the takeover with an "excessive amount of debt". This according to the commission, was likely to lead the electric utility into a lower credit rating, imprudent cost cutting and reduced capital investment representing "a package of potential harms" that could result in the degradation of services, increase consumer rates, a weakened financial structure for the Oregon utility and a diminution of the utilities assets.
The debt to finance Texas Pacific's consortium takeover of the Oregon utility was $US707 million.
The debt to finance Texas Pacific's consortium takeover of Qantas is in excess of $8 billion, over 10 times that in Oregon.
No wonder it is reported (December 15) that the international credit rating agencies are ringing warning bells on the Qantas if the takeover proceeds.
It is time for Peter Costello or Kevin Rudd to cut through the assurances and represent us by keeping Qantas as a financially sound Qantas - not as a debt-riddled Qantas.
Name supplied in print, but suppressed on Pprune
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from todays Australian newspaper
Anyone know the identity of the '36 most senior managers'? How do they counsel their staff when the takeover discussions arise as so often a lot of people look to their managers for guidance, rightly or wrongly. How can these 36 possible give unbiassed views? This proposal appears to be getting smellier by the day.
Qantas execs buy the blue sky
* Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
* February 03, 2007
QANTAS management stands to gain a further 4.5 per cent stake in the airline, if they meet the growth and performance requirements of the carrier's potential new owners.
Yesterday's Qantas bidder's statement revealed management would be eligible to buy into a pool of shares in Airline Partners Australia worth $160 million, if they meet certain performance and time-based incentive hurdles.
The executive would pay the offer price of $5.60 and be able take any profit once the carrier is resold or through an exit formula.
The scheme, which is available to the airline's 36 most senior managers, is in addition to 1 per cent stake they receive by rolling over $36 million in existing Qantas entitlements into APA.
Airline Partners Australia, which is putting $3.5 billion into the $11.1 billion cash offer for the airline, yesterday unveiled seven of the 12 directors it is putting up to run the airline.
It also outlined for the first time the breakdown of voting and economic rights between the partners and revealed it has yet to finalise foreign investors for an 11.5 per cent economic stake in the airline, worth $410 million.
But it said it had in place the funding to cover the $11.1 billion offer, which closes on March 9, as well as the $3 billion in cash and cash facilities to protect the airline against potential disasters.
Roughly three-quarters of the almost $8 billion of the debt it would carry would be secured, it said.
Analysts found few surprises in the bidder's statement and said the next hurdle was government approval. But they believed the detail in the statement would help assuage some government doubts about the deal.
"We maintain our hold recommendation and target price at $5.39, reflecting our continued belief that the probability of the current APA bid occurring at $5.60 is approximately 80 per cent," Deutsche Bank analyst Jason Bloom said.
But APA spokesman Bob Mansfield conceded that some people in the market did not not believe the deal would proceed.
"And I think it's fair to say that until all the issues, such as government's position, are made public, that's probably an understandable position," he said.
Mr Mansfield acknowledged that there was some nervousness in Canberra about the deal in an election year, but said the consortium had been providing information to government officials and still believed it did not break any rules.
Nonetheless, he revealed that the consortium was now looking at lodging a notice with the Foreign Investment Review Board in response to pressure from Treasurer Peter Costello.
"What has happened is we announced the deal just before Christmas, we provided all the information and everyone's been away," he said.
"So it's only at this point of time that everyone's back on deck so we can have informed discussions on that matter."
APA repeated many of its recent promises on issues such as not breaking up the airline, keeping the frequent flyer scheme and maintaining regional services.
It was less forthcoming about the massive fees that were expected to change hands as a result of the deal or how it would structure its tax liabilities.
Mr Mansfield said the biggest area of fees involved the financing arrangements.
"We want to make the point that the fees involved are not being paid by Qantas shareholders and they are a matter between the partners and confidential to that extent," he said.
* Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
* February 03, 2007
QANTAS management stands to gain a further 4.5 per cent stake in the airline, if they meet the growth and performance requirements of the carrier's potential new owners.
Yesterday's Qantas bidder's statement revealed management would be eligible to buy into a pool of shares in Airline Partners Australia worth $160 million, if they meet certain performance and time-based incentive hurdles.
The executive would pay the offer price of $5.60 and be able take any profit once the carrier is resold or through an exit formula.
The scheme, which is available to the airline's 36 most senior managers, is in addition to 1 per cent stake they receive by rolling over $36 million in existing Qantas entitlements into APA.
Airline Partners Australia, which is putting $3.5 billion into the $11.1 billion cash offer for the airline, yesterday unveiled seven of the 12 directors it is putting up to run the airline.
It also outlined for the first time the breakdown of voting and economic rights between the partners and revealed it has yet to finalise foreign investors for an 11.5 per cent economic stake in the airline, worth $410 million.
But it said it had in place the funding to cover the $11.1 billion offer, which closes on March 9, as well as the $3 billion in cash and cash facilities to protect the airline against potential disasters.
Roughly three-quarters of the almost $8 billion of the debt it would carry would be secured, it said.
Analysts found few surprises in the bidder's statement and said the next hurdle was government approval. But they believed the detail in the statement would help assuage some government doubts about the deal.
"We maintain our hold recommendation and target price at $5.39, reflecting our continued belief that the probability of the current APA bid occurring at $5.60 is approximately 80 per cent," Deutsche Bank analyst Jason Bloom said.
But APA spokesman Bob Mansfield conceded that some people in the market did not not believe the deal would proceed.
"And I think it's fair to say that until all the issues, such as government's position, are made public, that's probably an understandable position," he said.
Mr Mansfield acknowledged that there was some nervousness in Canberra about the deal in an election year, but said the consortium had been providing information to government officials and still believed it did not break any rules.
Nonetheless, he revealed that the consortium was now looking at lodging a notice with the Foreign Investment Review Board in response to pressure from Treasurer Peter Costello.
"What has happened is we announced the deal just before Christmas, we provided all the information and everyone's been away," he said.
"So it's only at this point of time that everyone's back on deck so we can have informed discussions on that matter."
APA repeated many of its recent promises on issues such as not breaking up the airline, keeping the frequent flyer scheme and maintaining regional services.
It was less forthcoming about the massive fees that were expected to change hands as a result of the deal or how it would structure its tax liabilities.
Mr Mansfield said the biggest area of fees involved the financing arrangements.
"We want to make the point that the fees involved are not being paid by Qantas shareholders and they are a matter between the partners and confidential to that extent," he said.
Grandpa Aerotart
"What has happened is we announced the deal just before Christmas, we provided all the information and everyone's been away," he said.
"So it's only at this point of time that everyone's back on deck so we can have informed discussions on that matter."
"So it's only at this point of time that everyone's back on deck so we can have informed discussions on that matter."
I guess that was just an accident...they wouldn't do that deliberately to place time pressures on decision makers...would they?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most important issue facing the Government concerns the often forgotten fact that Qantas is the fourth arm of the Defence force. If you need to get a lot of people a long way fast then only Qantas can do it.
This can be military scenario or a national emergency.
This also requires, amongst other things, in house heavy maintenance capability. This also includes the ability to carry out heavy maintenance for the RAAF.
If any of these options are to be degraded by commercial interests then the Government should step in.
This can be military scenario or a national emergency.
This also requires, amongst other things, in house heavy maintenance capability. This also includes the ability to carry out heavy maintenance for the RAAF.
If any of these options are to be degraded by commercial interests then the Government should step in.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this article is to be believed it seems that Qantas executives stand to make AUD $354 million if the deal does ahead.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-16942,00.html
OINK, OINK......
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-16942,00.html
OINK, OINK......
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No golden handshake as Work Choices changes begin to bite
...Last week about 40 Qantas employees who work at Sydney airport were told that their lunchroom was being closed and they would have to use a lunchroom 15 minutes' walk away. They get half-an-hour for lunch. "So they decided to meet and work out what to do," says McManus. "They had a 10-minute meeting." But, she says, "Qantas management told us it was illegal industrial action and that they had no choice under Work Choices but to dock these workers four hours' pay." That was only the beginning. Qantas went to the commission to seek orders against the union and the employees, and stop any further action. If anyone breaches the orders, says McManus, "it's a $33,000 fine for the union."
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do these filth sleep at night......?
In a single generation the upper class have been displaced by the managerial class, with fortunes that leave even old money gasping. Make no mistake, these are the robber baron's of our time.
All the elements of a classic are there, unbridled greed & lust, lies, mistreatment of the "hired help" & Orwellian industrial laws.
Howard must be praying that APA delays its campaign until after the election, APA are praying for a Howard victory.
I cannot see Qantas employees bending over to take it, while the bosses make off like bandits. Public sympathy for a confrontational IR approach by APA will be NIL.
They can run all the pictures of pilots waterfront properties in newspapers all they like, but the politics of the managers calling these people "greedy" when they stand to make $300+ million is simply morally indefensible. What can Howard say? Dixon may give his bonus away, but the history will not judge him to be Robin Hood.
If APA want a confrontation, they are going to burn all the $2 billion sitting in the war chest, without gaining any public sympathy. The liberals face decimation as the slowly burning fuse of the new IR laws ignites a powderkeg.
In very very comfy beds, in houses so expensive, they are beyond your wildest dreams.
Unless I am totally off the planet in ways that even Lowerlobe cannot fathom, I fail to see how Qantas be worth double its previous shareprice unless there is some amazing business plan that unlocks amazing shareholder value.
If there is an amazing business plan, created by GD and Co. that will double the company's worth, then it belongs to the current owners of Qantas - the shareholders. They paid for it. It was devised on their time.
Now I don't believe in amazing business plans that simply double net worth overnight, we aren't that smart.
So instead, what would be the conventional way of doubling the company's net worth? And if the same people who are running QF today are charged with doing so, how will they do it? What have they done before?
You've guessed it! Cut costs - and that means labor costs since fuel is effectively a given.
Now how could Qantas cut costs? Well for a start, there is the free trade agreement with America. And perhaps shortly a free trade agreement with China.
Start with engineering and do a little Lindsay Fox (linfox) stuff (if this hasnt been done already). Lindsay is a very smart operator and I have a great deal of respect for his operation from my own dealings with its senior management.
Sell your wheel shop, wheels, brakes, and tyres to BF Goodrich. They man this operation and all QF pays is a low per wheel/per landing rate. Sack all the staff associated with this operation from the manager down - you can under workchoices, it's for operational reasons!
Sell the engines and engine shop to GE on similar terms, QF pays a low per engine hour, per cycle rate. Sack all the staff and managers associated with these operations as well. GE will of course hire some of them on much lower Terms and conditions.
Maybe sell the rest of the engineeering operation to Boeing or even to a Chinese Maintenance organisation. That will neatly void any undertakings Qantas has given to the Federal Government won't it? You can't be forced to maintain employment in a business you no longer own can you? Furthermore once LAME's refuse offers to work in China, they can be removed for "operational reasons" and you can bring in guest worker Chinese LAMES for a fraction of the price - so yes, maintenance will be kept in Australia, it just won't be Australians doing it.
Thats taken care of engineering. You have now saved all that capital and you are paying for your aircraft by the hour with no fixed costs. Funny thing is that most of the staff will probably be happier this way.
Now pilots and cabin crew,,hmmmm, we do a similar thing with you. Qantas contracts to Forstaff or suchlike to provide contract pilots and CC, trained to QF standards. Forstaff gets paid on per hour/per cycle basis. We do it under t he "change of operations" provision in workchoices. Perhaps pilots get furloughed off overseas and when they return they are hired into a new company, or perhaps the QF fleet gets sold to a new ACT based entity, but anyway you are prised out of Qantas and forced to enter a labor service contract with a staff leasing company.
Catering staff- of course you get outsourced, easy!
Again Qantas has weaselled through its undertakings to the Federal Government, and how can the Federal Government enforce them anyway? Would they penalise Qantas? Not while it has such superb Sydney based lobbying!
So here we have the new Qantas - not many permanent staff, very low fixed costs, lower variable costs because the staff are paid lower rates and are only paid when they are needed which insulates against downturns etc.
We slash the size of management and the indirect costs of service departments. Who needs a purchasing clerk for wheels brakes and tyres if all that has been outsourced, the same goes for human resources, training everything.
Maybe its worth looking at US airlines and how many these days have their own engine shops, component overhaul shops and suchlike? My guess is that the Americans have run their tape measure over Qf and looked at the staff to seat/block hour/whatever ratios compared to American type airlines and realised that Qantas is monstrously overmanned by American standards. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that some of the nice young men who consulted to Qantas last year may be assisting the bidders.
But cheer up! Some of you may indeed be happier working for yourself as a contractor. Australians may get better service and cheaper flights as well.
And of course, seven years down the track after the crew has walked away counting its millions, the new management can start bringing everything back in house can't it?
The smart thing for the new owners to do is to set a "float day" five years from now, then make sure all outsourcing contracts expire after float day.
Unless I am totally off the planet in ways that even Lowerlobe cannot fathom, I fail to see how Qantas be worth double its previous shareprice unless there is some amazing business plan that unlocks amazing shareholder value.
If there is an amazing business plan, created by GD and Co. that will double the company's worth, then it belongs to the current owners of Qantas - the shareholders. They paid for it. It was devised on their time.
Now I don't believe in amazing business plans that simply double net worth overnight, we aren't that smart.
So instead, what would be the conventional way of doubling the company's net worth? And if the same people who are running QF today are charged with doing so, how will they do it? What have they done before?
You've guessed it! Cut costs - and that means labor costs since fuel is effectively a given.
Now how could Qantas cut costs? Well for a start, there is the free trade agreement with America. And perhaps shortly a free trade agreement with China.
Start with engineering and do a little Lindsay Fox (linfox) stuff (if this hasnt been done already). Lindsay is a very smart operator and I have a great deal of respect for his operation from my own dealings with its senior management.
Sell your wheel shop, wheels, brakes, and tyres to BF Goodrich. They man this operation and all QF pays is a low per wheel/per landing rate. Sack all the staff associated with this operation from the manager down - you can under workchoices, it's for operational reasons!
Sell the engines and engine shop to GE on similar terms, QF pays a low per engine hour, per cycle rate. Sack all the staff and managers associated with these operations as well. GE will of course hire some of them on much lower Terms and conditions.
Maybe sell the rest of the engineeering operation to Boeing or even to a Chinese Maintenance organisation. That will neatly void any undertakings Qantas has given to the Federal Government won't it? You can't be forced to maintain employment in a business you no longer own can you? Furthermore once LAME's refuse offers to work in China, they can be removed for "operational reasons" and you can bring in guest worker Chinese LAMES for a fraction of the price - so yes, maintenance will be kept in Australia, it just won't be Australians doing it.
Thats taken care of engineering. You have now saved all that capital and you are paying for your aircraft by the hour with no fixed costs. Funny thing is that most of the staff will probably be happier this way.
Now pilots and cabin crew,,hmmmm, we do a similar thing with you. Qantas contracts to Forstaff or suchlike to provide contract pilots and CC, trained to QF standards. Forstaff gets paid on per hour/per cycle basis. We do it under t he "change of operations" provision in workchoices. Perhaps pilots get furloughed off overseas and when they return they are hired into a new company, or perhaps the QF fleet gets sold to a new ACT based entity, but anyway you are prised out of Qantas and forced to enter a labor service contract with a staff leasing company.
Catering staff- of course you get outsourced, easy!
Again Qantas has weaselled through its undertakings to the Federal Government, and how can the Federal Government enforce them anyway? Would they penalise Qantas? Not while it has such superb Sydney based lobbying!
So here we have the new Qantas - not many permanent staff, very low fixed costs, lower variable costs because the staff are paid lower rates and are only paid when they are needed which insulates against downturns etc.
We slash the size of management and the indirect costs of service departments. Who needs a purchasing clerk for wheels brakes and tyres if all that has been outsourced, the same goes for human resources, training everything.
Maybe its worth looking at US airlines and how many these days have their own engine shops, component overhaul shops and suchlike? My guess is that the Americans have run their tape measure over Qf and looked at the staff to seat/block hour/whatever ratios compared to American type airlines and realised that Qantas is monstrously overmanned by American standards. In fact, I wouldn't mind betting that some of the nice young men who consulted to Qantas last year may be assisting the bidders.
But cheer up! Some of you may indeed be happier working for yourself as a contractor. Australians may get better service and cheaper flights as well.
And of course, seven years down the track after the crew has walked away counting its millions, the new management can start bringing everything back in house can't it?
The smart thing for the new owners to do is to set a "float day" five years from now, then make sure all outsourcing contracts expire after float day.
Last edited by Sunfish; 4th Feb 2007 at 03:07.
Grandpa Aerotart
American Airlines for starters...biggest airline in the world.
Outsourcing is old news...it doesn't work near as well as they thought it would in the US...not with highly technical trades...not that braindead Australian management have worked that out yet.
AA's maintenance facilities rather than outsourced and minimised are making a large profit doing 3rd party maintenance as well as AA's.
Howard won't let this takeover happen...it will be the end of QF and the end of his Govt...and it will be forever remembered as his legacy of office.
Outsourcing is old news...it doesn't work near as well as they thought it would in the US...not with highly technical trades...not that braindead Australian management have worked that out yet.
AA's maintenance facilities rather than outsourced and minimised are making a large profit doing 3rd party maintenance as well as AA's.
Howard won't let this takeover happen...it will be the end of QF and the end of his Govt...and it will be forever remembered as his legacy of office.
Evertonian
often forgotten fact that Qantas is the fourth arm of the Defence force
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howards own goal - a wedge too far?
Now pilots and cabin crew,,hmmmm, we do a similar thing with you. Qantas contracts to Forstaff or suchlike to provide contract pilots and CC, trained to QF standards. Forstaff gets paid on per hour/per cycle basis. We do it under t he "change of operations" provision in workchoices. Perhaps pilots get furloughed off overseas and when they return they are hired into a new company, or perhaps the QF fleet gets sold to a new ACT based entity, but anyway you are prised out of Qantas and forced to enter a labor service contract with a staff leasing company.
I suspect Howard, really didn't think that he would have to deal with Qantas size operation at the cutting edge of workchoices before the next election. Understandably the backbenchers are nervous as hell, realising the monster THEY voted for is about to be unleased before its time is due. Cunning as always, Howard built in time protections to get him a fifth term before they would really start to bite.
So, Howards wedgie: block the takeover, and diminish the private equity torrent or allow it to fly and almost certainly lose the next election. The ACTU's campaign will receive an huge boost via the Tristar precedent & by extension the possibilites for Qantas on the first day after the election (whoever wins).
If Rudd wins, on the other hand, he can promise to rip up workchoices knowing he won't have control of the senate, and therefore will blame the liberals for blocking his mandate. Nice own goal John.
Last edited by freddyKrueger; 4th Feb 2007 at 06:20.
Workchoices in my opinion hasnt effected Australia that badly at all, infact i know a couple of sparkys thatgot sacked by their company and out sourced and now earning 20k more than what they earnt at the orginall company which they were happy about. But obviously it didnt happen everywhere.
I really hope that this doesnt go through. I just wis Geoff Dixon would have a hear attack and cark it
or 'happen' to go missing in the middle of the pacific.
I really hope that this doesnt go through. I just wis Geoff Dixon would have a hear attack and cark it
or 'happen' to go missing in the middle of the pacific.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Start with engineering and do a little Lindsay Fox (linfox) stuff (if this hasnt been done already). Lindsay is a very smart operator and I have a great deal of respect for his operation from my own dealings with its senior management.
Sell your wheel shop, wheels, brakes, and tyres to BF Goodrich. They man this operation and all QF pays is a low per wheel/per landing rate. Sack all the staff associated with this operation from the manager down - you can under workchoices, it's for operational reasons!
Qantas Engineering did just that years ago, infact it works so well that from time to time Goodrich are unable to supply.
The concept of "outsourcing" is not a new one, even to Qf management. The only problem is if you are going to sell off the farm then you should first make sure there is another farm somewhere out there that can cover your production. Brilliant move, fantastic cost savings, only problem is that all the engine overhaul facilities world wide have no capacity for years. All the 3rd party MROs have no line space to carry out a/c heavy maint checks for years. Qf could be in a bit of a pickle shortly because they reduced their maint. capacity rather rashly last year.
Sell your wheel shop, wheels, brakes, and tyres to BF Goodrich. They man this operation and all QF pays is a low per wheel/per landing rate. Sack all the staff associated with this operation from the manager down - you can under workchoices, it's for operational reasons!
Qantas Engineering did just that years ago, infact it works so well that from time to time Goodrich are unable to supply.
The concept of "outsourcing" is not a new one, even to Qf management. The only problem is if you are going to sell off the farm then you should first make sure there is another farm somewhere out there that can cover your production. Brilliant move, fantastic cost savings, only problem is that all the engine overhaul facilities world wide have no capacity for years. All the 3rd party MROs have no line space to carry out a/c heavy maint checks for years. Qf could be in a bit of a pickle shortly because they reduced their maint. capacity rather rashly last year.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gasp...
It's difficult to know what to say, other than this is one very scary world.
Not sure whether you're taking the piss and trying to wind people up, Sunfish, but I am "not hearing you", as the Americans love to say.
As a reader looking for an answer to why this deal 'feels' so bad to others, I think this thread has many of the answers.
At least it seems to have.
I'm leaving it to others to contribute sensible and unemotional comment to counter the abject rot that must be present in the boardroom of Qantas right now.
Texas seems to have a past, a sordid past filled with lies, while the Qantas Managers seem to have a very bright future!
Neither seems to be healthy for the shareholders at all.
Not long term.
How is it profitable if there's no airline left?
How can the Manager's be acting in the company's best interests when they're receiving such massive bonuses for approving a sale?
Isn't there a conflict of interest there?
You seem to have dropped the ball, Sunfish.
If you don't mind, we'd probably do quite well hearing some unemotional analysis anytime soon.
Not sure whether you're taking the piss and trying to wind people up, Sunfish, but I am "not hearing you", as the Americans love to say.
As a reader looking for an answer to why this deal 'feels' so bad to others, I think this thread has many of the answers.
At least it seems to have.
I'm leaving it to others to contribute sensible and unemotional comment to counter the abject rot that must be present in the boardroom of Qantas right now.
Texas seems to have a past, a sordid past filled with lies, while the Qantas Managers seem to have a very bright future!
Neither seems to be healthy for the shareholders at all.
Not long term.
How is it profitable if there's no airline left?
How can the Manager's be acting in the company's best interests when they're receiving such massive bonuses for approving a sale?
Isn't there a conflict of interest there?
You seem to have dropped the ball, Sunfish.
If you don't mind, we'd probably do quite well hearing some unemotional analysis anytime soon.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE consortium looking to buy Qantas says any parliamentary inquiry into the sale of the airline would "be most unfortunate"...........
I think that just about say's it all...............
I think that just about say's it all...............