Qf Staff Morale
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft posted...
"It's not about them - it is about the shareholders (the house owner). The question has been whether the right thing has been done by the shareholders".....
Some people it appears cannot see the forest for the tree's...
"It's not about them - it is about the shareholders (the house owner). The question has been whether the right thing has been done by the shareholders".....
Some people it appears cannot see the forest for the tree's...
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft,
The house was 'valued' at $350,000 because a certain person who ran the house on behalf of the owners was telling all buyers at every available opportunity that the house was situated on polluted land, was structurally unsound, had a leaking roof and therefore would not get sufficient rent to cover the costs.
But to one particular buyer he told the truth: The land was great, The house was very solidly built, the roof was in top shape and the rental market was already starting to skyrocket. (Oh and he stood to get a massive kick back from this particular buyer, that he wouldn't get from all the other buyers).
That would be unethical and illegal for a real estate agent doing a $500,000 deal but apparently OK for a CEO doing an $11 Billion deal.
Oh and did I mention he also bought the house next door and was renting it out at a cheaper rate whilst charging all costs to the main house, claiming that he was a genius for the ‘success’ of his new housing investment (There is also a small house in Singapore, but you wouldn't know about that!).
The house was 'valued' at $350,000 because a certain person who ran the house on behalf of the owners was telling all buyers at every available opportunity that the house was situated on polluted land, was structurally unsound, had a leaking roof and therefore would not get sufficient rent to cover the costs.
But to one particular buyer he told the truth: The land was great, The house was very solidly built, the roof was in top shape and the rental market was already starting to skyrocket. (Oh and he stood to get a massive kick back from this particular buyer, that he wouldn't get from all the other buyers).
That would be unethical and illegal for a real estate agent doing a $500,000 deal but apparently OK for a CEO doing an $11 Billion deal.
Oh and did I mention he also bought the house next door and was renting it out at a cheaper rate whilst charging all costs to the main house, claiming that he was a genius for the ‘success’ of his new housing investment (There is also a small house in Singapore, but you wouldn't know about that!).
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hang on i'll just flick through the latest young libs meeting minutes
a for aquisitions..nuh
b for bankers picnics..nuh
c for corporate bonuses..nuh
d for downsizing unions..nuh
e for elections in oct..nuh
f for the fact finding trip to france...nuh
g for hoping to stay in government..nuh
h for my hero johnny howard..nuh
i for industrial domination by employers..nuh
j for job with bank if we lose election...nuh
j..j...j...theres nothing about jetstar asia here,
is there an airline called jetstar asia?
why didn't anyone tell me about an airline called jetstar asia
no one told me about this at school or at the yacht club
how long has this been going on
wait till i bring this up at the next branch meeting
a for aquisitions..nuh
b for bankers picnics..nuh
c for corporate bonuses..nuh
d for downsizing unions..nuh
e for elections in oct..nuh
f for the fact finding trip to france...nuh
g for hoping to stay in government..nuh
h for my hero johnny howard..nuh
i for industrial domination by employers..nuh
j for job with bank if we lose election...nuh
j..j...j...theres nothing about jetstar asia here,
is there an airline called jetstar asia?
why didn't anyone tell me about an airline called jetstar asia
no one told me about this at school or at the yacht club
how long has this been going on
wait till i bring this up at the next branch meeting
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ostraaalya
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but i gotta agree with aircraft.
If i took my house to auction, and it maxed at $350k and was passed in (even though I thought it was worth more), then got an offer of $545k, it wouldn't take me too long to sell.
If i took my house to auction, and it maxed at $350k and was passed in (even though I thought it was worth more), then got an offer of $545k, it wouldn't take me too long to sell.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crank,
You may well sell, but you would be mighty pissed off if you found out the reason it passed in at $350k was because the agent had talked down the value of your home. Then you find out the buyer for $545k had been fully advised by the same agent and actually knew it was worth $760k.
Luckily there are laws agaist this in real estate, but not in big business apparently
Now wash your mouth out
You may well sell, but you would be mighty pissed off if you found out the reason it passed in at $350k was because the agent had talked down the value of your home. Then you find out the buyer for $545k had been fully advised by the same agent and actually knew it was worth $760k.
Luckily there are laws agaist this in real estate, but not in big business apparently
Sorry, but i gotta agree with aircraft.
lowerlobe,
It was 'holic that started the real estate analogy - I was just continuing it.
In an earlier post you complained about the drift of this thread away from "QF staff morale". I tried to move the thread back in that direction by asking you to elaborate on your "sheer numbers of disengaged staff" claim but you ignored me.
Again I will ask you to elaborate on that claim. I am genuinely interested in the level of "disengagement" at Qantas.
You said:
You said that because, to you, it is all about Dixon and his conduct and not about the shareholders. But, you cannot make judgements about Dixon without considering the shareholders point of view.
If you consider the shareholders and find that their interests were indeed served, then it immediately becomes very difficult for you to make your case about Dixon's alleged conduct.
Were the shareholders interests served? Of course they were - they were offered a return that was almost 60% above the prevailing market value.
So, logically, if Dixon was negligent, it can only be because 60% was not enough!
But if you agree with that assertion, then you can't also agree with the idea (expressed by speeeedy and many others) that Dixon was at fault for "talking up" the price to one buyer in particular!
To continue with the real estate analogy, using speeeedy's idea that Dixon was "talking down" the price to one group of buyers, but "talking it up" to one special buyer:
The real estate agent, in seeking potential buyers, identifies one particular "special" buyer as having deep pockets. To this buyer, he "talks up" the price as much as possible but tries to discourage all the other buyers by making pessimistic comments.
The special buyer carefully calculates what he is prepared to pay and arrives at the figure of $545K. The deal falls through and the special buyer remarks that he thinks the house could be worth as much as $760K.
When you look at it this way, how can you say Dixon was not just trying to get the best possible price? And you can't say Dixon was playing favourites because there were no other bidders!
I do not believe speeeedy's assertions. To do so requires one to believe that Dixon's pessimistic comments alone were suppressing the share price by around 60%.
Speeeedy said:
There are 10 times more laws governing corporations than real estate. Your problem here is that the real estate analogy is not completely faithful to the business situation.
I really enjoyed the "little house in Singapore" comment from speeeedy but commendations also to Fliegenmong and roamingwolf for what were quite clever, witty and humourous posts. You guys have got me wondering whether I should be collecting some of these posts for display to my future grandchildren!
It was 'holic that started the real estate analogy - I was just continuing it.
In an earlier post you complained about the drift of this thread away from "QF staff morale". I tried to move the thread back in that direction by asking you to elaborate on your "sheer numbers of disengaged staff" claim but you ignored me.
Again I will ask you to elaborate on that claim. I am genuinely interested in the level of "disengagement" at Qantas.
You said:
Some people it appears cannot see the forest for the tree's...
If you consider the shareholders and find that their interests were indeed served, then it immediately becomes very difficult for you to make your case about Dixon's alleged conduct.
Were the shareholders interests served? Of course they were - they were offered a return that was almost 60% above the prevailing market value.
So, logically, if Dixon was negligent, it can only be because 60% was not enough!
But if you agree with that assertion, then you can't also agree with the idea (expressed by speeeedy and many others) that Dixon was at fault for "talking up" the price to one buyer in particular!
To continue with the real estate analogy, using speeeedy's idea that Dixon was "talking down" the price to one group of buyers, but "talking it up" to one special buyer:
The real estate agent, in seeking potential buyers, identifies one particular "special" buyer as having deep pockets. To this buyer, he "talks up" the price as much as possible but tries to discourage all the other buyers by making pessimistic comments.
The special buyer carefully calculates what he is prepared to pay and arrives at the figure of $545K. The deal falls through and the special buyer remarks that he thinks the house could be worth as much as $760K.
When you look at it this way, how can you say Dixon was not just trying to get the best possible price? And you can't say Dixon was playing favourites because there were no other bidders!
I do not believe speeeedy's assertions. To do so requires one to believe that Dixon's pessimistic comments alone were suppressing the share price by around 60%.
Speeeedy said:
Luckily there are laws agaist this in real estate, but not in big business apparently
I really enjoyed the "little house in Singapore" comment from speeeedy but commendations also to Fliegenmong and roamingwolf for what were quite clever, witty and humourous posts. You guys have got me wondering whether I should be collecting some of these posts for display to my future grandchildren!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luckily there are laws agaist this in real estate, but not in big business apparently
at the end of that statement. I am aware of the many laws and of ASIC, I was hinting that they are not doing anything in this case.On your other point regarding dixon talking down the value, I think it is worth remembering that it is rare for CEO's to so actively (and often) bag their own company, so negative comments from them do in fact have a tremendous effect on the market, the reverse has been proven after GD's positive comments post APA.
Oh and one other thing:
FOG
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedy....Don't waste your time with aircraft ,he does not answer any questions and is only fishing.......A 5 year old could understand our analogy........do not take the bait
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ally "whatshername" interviewed Il Duce last night on Lateline Business.
Questions ranged from the new Roo logo to damage to the brand from the failed rort, [sorry bid].
For mine she left the best question to last.
Two words............. "How's morale ?"
You should have seen him squirm.
Questions ranged from the new Roo logo to damage to the brand from the failed rort, [sorry bid].
For mine she left the best question to last.
Two words............. "How's morale ?"
You should have seen him squirm.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speedbird..I have just downloaded the vid clip and it is very interesting as he tries to put a positive spin on her questions.
When asked about morale and he admits that there could be some areas with a morale problem I would have liked her to ask .............WHY?????
Crank...A few points that you have got wrong...
The property was never for sale when it was valued at $350,000 and therefore it was never passed in.It was simply a value that the marketplace has put on it just as everything else has a value.
Your advisors then tell you that you have an offer at $545,000 and you would have to have mental problems not to accept it.They want you to put your property on the market at $545,000.
You understand that your advisors are working with the buyer and are to recieve a significant commission if you sell.
Your advisors tell you that the value of your property will plummet if you do not accept the offer.
The reality is that your property increases in value instead of falling as your advisors told you and in fact could be nearly 40% higher than the offer THEY wanted you to accept.....and they said you must have had mental problems not to accept.
When asked about morale and he admits that there could be some areas with a morale problem I would have liked her to ask .............WHY?????
Crank...A few points that you have got wrong...
The property was never for sale when it was valued at $350,000 and therefore it was never passed in.It was simply a value that the marketplace has put on it just as everything else has a value.
Your advisors then tell you that you have an offer at $545,000 and you would have to have mental problems not to accept it.They want you to put your property on the market at $545,000.
You understand that your advisors are working with the buyer and are to recieve a significant commission if you sell.
Your advisors tell you that the value of your property will plummet if you do not accept the offer.
The reality is that your property increases in value instead of falling as your advisors told you and in fact could be nearly 40% higher than the offer THEY wanted you to accept.....and they said you must have had mental problems not to accept.
Last edited by lowerlobe; 24th Jul 2007 at 23:27.
lowerlobe said:
I have twice now asked you to elaborate on your earlier statement of "sheer numbers of disengaged staff". From where have you obtained these numbers?
Are you just counting griping PPRUNE posters and extrapolating?
Don't waste your time with aircraft ,he does not answer any questions and is only fishing...
Are you just counting griping PPRUNE posters and extrapolating?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q and A
1.The Company's own survey indicate a large number..>72%...of staff are disengaged.
2. Can anyone indicate the origins of Dixon's statement that crew "are nothing more than evil bun tossers"?
2. Can anyone indicate the origins of Dixon's statement that crew "are nothing more than evil bun tossers"?
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft,
If Butterfield8's info is correct then that would mean a big problem for any company,would it not?
Greater than 72% is massive and if so what would be the cause Aircraft?
Sounds almost as bad as the morale in the Liberal party with the current polls,wouldn't you say aircraft?
Some here have suggested that you are here on a fishing exercise aircraft.Is that why you said this:
"You guys have got me wondering whether I should be collecting some of these posts for display"
If Butterfield8's info is correct then that would mean a big problem for any company,would it not?
Greater than 72% is massive and if so what would be the cause Aircraft?
Sounds almost as bad as the morale in the Liberal party with the current polls,wouldn't you say aircraft?
Some here have suggested that you are here on a fishing exercise aircraft.Is that why you said this:
"You guys have got me wondering whether I should be collecting some of these posts for display"
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: concert hall
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For info, the EGM 'the borg' said on abc business lateline that certain 'groups' were unhappy and were suffering from low morale. I would put it to him that they are;
1 pilots
2 engineers
3 flight attendants
now out of 37,000 employees.....how many would that group add up to?
oh yes......and the borg came off with the most hypocritical statement ever, 'at Qantas safety is 1st,2nd,3rd,4th.' Obviously takes his cue from the boss of engineering, cocks
1 pilots
2 engineers
3 flight attendants
now out of 37,000 employees.....how many would that group add up to?
oh yes......and the borg came off with the most hypocritical statement ever, 'at Qantas safety is 1st,2nd,3rd,4th.'
Obviously takes his cue from the boss of engineering, cocks
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sth central
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went to a 'meet the CEO' conference a year or so ago, GD was the guest.
In question time from the floor the (dis) engagement survey was brought up. GD answered that Cabin crew scored the lowest for morale ( 18% of them engaged) of any group of emloyees ever surveyed by the auditors. He also stated the Tech crew scored the second lowest for morale of any group ever surveyed. The auditors conduct these surveys worldwide!!!!!!!
GD next sentence was along these lines:
"The result was a surprise but with tech crew they are the highest paid employees in the company and under 1% of them leaves the company in any given year. What does that tell you?"
GD statement says it all. In a risk management style of leadership he is only concerned with money making ability of decisions. Staff engagement is not even a consideration......unless there is a shortage of staff. Fingers crossed
In question time from the floor the (dis) engagement survey was brought up. GD answered that Cabin crew scored the lowest for morale ( 18% of them engaged) of any group of emloyees ever surveyed by the auditors. He also stated the Tech crew scored the second lowest for morale of any group ever surveyed. The auditors conduct these surveys worldwide!!!!!!!
GD next sentence was along these lines:
"The result was a surprise but with tech crew they are the highest paid employees in the company and under 1% of them leaves the company in any given year. What does that tell you?"
GD statement says it all. In a risk management style of leadership he is only concerned with money making ability of decisions. Staff engagement is not even a consideration......unless there is a shortage of staff. Fingers crossed
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth would KB know about excellence in human resources?
http://www.acevents.com.au/hr2007/
At least he will have some first person insight into staff disengagement.
Eight enemies to staff engagement????
I can think of one.
FOG
http://www.acevents.com.au/hr2007/
At least he will have some first person insight into staff disengagement.
Eight enemies to staff engagement????
I can think of one.
FOG
Last edited by speedbirdhouse; 25th Jul 2007 at 22:48.