QF management [cough] are not off the hook re the APA rort by a LONG way.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF management [cough] are not off the hook re the APA rort by a LONG way.....
Ticky Fullerton will be reporting on next week's ABC's Four Corners program about the failed APA bid for Qantas.
It should have those at QF with their snouts in the trough well and truly squirming.
If your aren't home find a fifteen year old to program the VCR........
Qf insiders close to the top [with a conscience] might like to contact the boys and girls at Four Corners here-
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/contact.htm
It should have those at QF with their snouts in the trough well and truly squirming.
If your aren't home find a fifteen year old to program the VCR........
Qf insiders close to the top [with a conscience] might like to contact the boys and girls at Four Corners here-
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/contact.htm
Evertonian
Whats in the public domain is amazing enough already! Maybe, as I'm not really into the stock market, there are intricacies of the laws I just don't understand, but by all accounts, this was one hell of a shady deal!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster, I don't think anyone even knows what was going to happen with the deal if it had gone ahead.
Furthermore, I do not believe there is even any independent aviation expertise in Australia capable of analysing, or auditing, Qantas to arrive at a fair market value for its shares, and understand what was going to be done by it's new owners.
Even if there was such expertise, would you want to risk your future business by arriving at a conclusion unfavourable to your potentially biggest customer?
The deal was what I would call "self referential" in that the Board and Senior Management of the company were the only ones capable of arriving at a fair value figure for the company, yet they were regarded by the potential new owners as "essential" to their bid, and were to be remunerated accordingly. This is a massive conflict of interest in my opinion, although I am sure it is perfectly legal.
Let me give you a little example of what I mean.
Take Qantas's orders for new aircraft. They have paid God knows what for places on production lines for B787 and A340.
Now what are those worth on the open market today? Of course in the Qantas books, they would have to be carried at purchase price in the auditors belief that that QF is going to go ahead and complete the purchase of these aircraft.......but what if they weren't?
Similarly, I would assume that QF's rotables would all be well and truly written off by now (fully depreciated), what is there market value?
Then of course there is the wonderful subject of what is aircraft maintenance (a fully deductible business expense) and what is actual refurbishment (A capital expenditure, not a business expense). If I spend thirty million bucks upgrading thronomisters from Mk5 to Mk 7A, is this an expense or capital expenditure, knowing that the Mk7A Thronomister now sells for $500,000 each on the open market?
What has happened to all QF's "used" turbine blades, stators and vanes? I know a lot of airlines kept theirs in the hope that repair technology would one day be good enough to repair them?
These matters could really only be investigated by an auditor with extensive aviation engineering expereince, and I don't think there are many around.
But of course it would all be a private matter wouldn't it?
The whole thing has been niggling me for some time. We appear to have had the bare legal minimum of helpful information from the Board that would allow shareholders to make an informed decision. What has been fed has all been perfectly legal I'm sure, but morally, knowing that Macbank are not stupid and are backed by big players, one has to ask was the bid too low?
Obviously the answer has to be yes, but of course we didn't hear that from the Board did we?
The whole thing reminds me of a union meeting many, many years ago out at Tulla...... Our union head office negotiator told us the deal he had got from management, which to us was disgustingly small,
........ then he told us how hard he had to work to get even this pipsqueek payrise out of them,
.......... then he told us there was no way they were going to increase their offer,
..........then he told us that if we rejected it, there was no way he was going to waste his time trying to get a better offer,
...........then he told us that if we decided to go on strike we would be "on our own" and would get no guidance or support from him.
In other words we were up the creek without a paddle, what could we do but accept the offer?
and a year later he joined their industrial relations department
Furthermore, I do not believe there is even any independent aviation expertise in Australia capable of analysing, or auditing, Qantas to arrive at a fair market value for its shares, and understand what was going to be done by it's new owners.
Even if there was such expertise, would you want to risk your future business by arriving at a conclusion unfavourable to your potentially biggest customer?
The deal was what I would call "self referential" in that the Board and Senior Management of the company were the only ones capable of arriving at a fair value figure for the company, yet they were regarded by the potential new owners as "essential" to their bid, and were to be remunerated accordingly. This is a massive conflict of interest in my opinion, although I am sure it is perfectly legal.
Let me give you a little example of what I mean.
Take Qantas's orders for new aircraft. They have paid God knows what for places on production lines for B787 and A340.
Now what are those worth on the open market today? Of course in the Qantas books, they would have to be carried at purchase price in the auditors belief that that QF is going to go ahead and complete the purchase of these aircraft.......but what if they weren't?
Similarly, I would assume that QF's rotables would all be well and truly written off by now (fully depreciated), what is there market value?
Then of course there is the wonderful subject of what is aircraft maintenance (a fully deductible business expense) and what is actual refurbishment (A capital expenditure, not a business expense). If I spend thirty million bucks upgrading thronomisters from Mk5 to Mk 7A, is this an expense or capital expenditure, knowing that the Mk7A Thronomister now sells for $500,000 each on the open market?
What has happened to all QF's "used" turbine blades, stators and vanes? I know a lot of airlines kept theirs in the hope that repair technology would one day be good enough to repair them?
These matters could really only be investigated by an auditor with extensive aviation engineering expereince, and I don't think there are many around.
But of course it would all be a private matter wouldn't it?
The whole thing has been niggling me for some time. We appear to have had the bare legal minimum of helpful information from the Board that would allow shareholders to make an informed decision. What has been fed has all been perfectly legal I'm sure, but morally, knowing that Macbank are not stupid and are backed by big players, one has to ask was the bid too low?
Obviously the answer has to be yes, but of course we didn't hear that from the Board did we?
The whole thing reminds me of a union meeting many, many years ago out at Tulla...... Our union head office negotiator told us the deal he had got from management, which to us was disgustingly small,
........ then he told us how hard he had to work to get even this pipsqueek payrise out of them,
.......... then he told us there was no way they were going to increase their offer,
..........then he told us that if we rejected it, there was no way he was going to waste his time trying to get a better offer,
...........then he told us that if we decided to go on strike we would be "on our own" and would get no guidance or support from him.
In other words we were up the creek without a paddle, what could we do but accept the offer?
and a year later he joined their industrial relations department
Last edited by YesTAM; 21st May 2007 at 20:13.
Evertonian
Fast track to management from the floor has always been the Union Reps role!
Yes indeedy YesTAM, lots of intricacies involved. Who can really sort out the wheat from the chaff in this whole affair?
PS. I believe the Thronomeister MK7A has been superceded by the MK7B-Special. Might affect your figures.
Yes indeedy YesTAM, lots of intricacies involved. Who can really sort out the wheat from the chaff in this whole affair?
PS. I believe the Thronomeister MK7A has been superceded by the MK7B-Special.
Might affect your figures.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Out of the furnace...
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YesTAM,
I had a dream about a union EBA negotiator who put a deal to the membership, and within MONTHS was fleet manager.
I had another dream where a union president boasts about having the board chairman & CEO's personal numbers in his speed dial and can call them at any time. He denies coverage to fellow pilots after they are acquired. The dream continues & he writes a scathing audit report about the incumbent chief pilot at the request of the board. Blow me down within MONTHS he himself is chief pilot! Later, another of the report's authors becomes his deputy.
Just a dream.
I had a dream about a union EBA negotiator who put a deal to the membership, and within MONTHS was fleet manager.
I had another dream where a union president boasts about having the board chairman & CEO's personal numbers in his speed dial and can call them at any time. He denies coverage to fellow pilots after they are acquired. The dream continues & he writes a scathing audit report about the incumbent chief pilot at the request of the board. Blow me down within MONTHS he himself is chief pilot! Later, another of the report's authors becomes his deputy.
Just a dream.
