Rex suspends maryborough services too
Dear Mr Boney,
Whilst it pleases me that you are valued by your employer, I regret to advise that it is the level of salary that primarily determines the success or otherwise of your loan application, and in your case, this level of income would be considered insufficient for a loan of this magnitude.
Have you considered supplementing your income or obtaining more favourable employment elsewhere?
Warmest regards,
Mr Bank Manager
Whilst it pleases me that you are valued by your employer, I regret to advise that it is the level of salary that primarily determines the success or otherwise of your loan application, and in your case, this level of income would be considered insufficient for a loan of this magnitude.
Have you considered supplementing your income or obtaining more favourable employment elsewhere?
Warmest regards,
Mr Bank Manager
REX may have some method in their madness,
Could it be possible that the company has foreseen an economic crash approaching. The combined effects of drought, rate hikes and oil prices slowing down the global need for resources all draining the populations ability to afford travel.
What if the worst case economic scenario was to be played out over the next few years?
Airlines that depend on leisure travelers and mining contracts may find themselves struggling for loads. Many operators who have chosen to expand with financial burdens may be forced to severely cut back, especially if they have traded in their smaller fleets for high capacity aircraft, or have challenged themselves to new non-traditional markets
From a financial survivability point of view REX is perfectly positioned for that scenario, of course, thats if they dont loose all their staff in the interim.
Only a different point of view, not one I particularly believe in.
Could it be possible that the company has foreseen an economic crash approaching. The combined effects of drought, rate hikes and oil prices slowing down the global need for resources all draining the populations ability to afford travel.
What if the worst case economic scenario was to be played out over the next few years?
Airlines that depend on leisure travelers and mining contracts may find themselves struggling for loads. Many operators who have chosen to expand with financial burdens may be forced to severely cut back, especially if they have traded in their smaller fleets for high capacity aircraft, or have challenged themselves to new non-traditional markets
From a financial survivability point of view REX is perfectly positioned for that scenario, of course, thats if they dont loose all their staff in the interim.
Only a different point of view, not one I particularly believe in.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aircraft or airhead?
Mr Aircraft,
Despite all nonsense and explanations and whatever else you think your posts are trying to achieve, you know what is really trying to be said here. This is a serious situation for Rex and your posts are nothing but self serving and a distraction if anything. Bear a thought for the employees involved here, for them, this is real. Try to understand the situation is NOT about you.
If you are TRYING to promote reactions, you are doing well, but your writings might be better suited to the Sydney morning Herald's feed back section.
Despite all nonsense and explanations and whatever else you think your posts are trying to achieve, you know what is really trying to be said here. This is a serious situation for Rex and your posts are nothing but self serving and a distraction if anything. Bear a thought for the employees involved here, for them, this is real. Try to understand the situation is NOT about you.
If you are TRYING to promote reactions, you are doing well, but your writings might be better suited to the Sydney morning Herald's feed back section.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft, I take it from your posts that you would be quite happy to work for less as long as you get a valentines day card from your boss eery year saying "I love you. Please don't ask for more moeny, because I find you a VALUED employee"
and your quote :
emphasises exactly the point of why people are leaving.
BECAUSE management do not get all warm and fuzzy to every employee and say... gee you are a valued member of our team; the ONLY way we can judge our VALUE to our employer is by remuneration.
Don't know about your situation, but pi$$ poor wages and a bucket full of love will NOT pay my mortgage!
and your quote :
Whilst it pleases me that you are valued by your employer, I regret to advise that it is the level of salary that primarily determines the success or otherwise of your loan application, and in your case, this level of income would be considered insufficient for a loan of this magnitude.
Have you considered supplementing your income or obtaining more favourable employment elsewhere?
Have you considered supplementing your income or obtaining more favourable employment elsewhere?
BECAUSE management do not get all warm and fuzzy to every employee and say... gee you are a valued member of our team; the ONLY way we can judge our VALUE to our employer is by remuneration.
Don't know about your situation, but pi$$ poor wages and a bucket full of love will NOT pay my mortgage!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you considered supplementing your income or obtaining more favourable employment elsewhere?
My point exactly.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bagdad
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please everyone lets not be too hard on AIRCRAFT..
He was probably punched up everyday at school, had/has no mates and the closest he has got to relations with the opposite sex is his computer!!
He was probably punched up everyday at school, had/has no mates and the closest he has got to relations with the opposite sex is his computer!!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: XR Land
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
43 Inches and Dr Oakford,
If REX had a jittery feeling about the economy do you think they would have just gone out and replaced all their SAABS with the 340+ Model at a considerable cost??
If REX had a jittery feeling about the economy do you think they would have just gone out and replaced all their SAABS with the 340+ Model at a considerable cost??
340B+ aircraft are leased and I would think that the cost involved in procuring these aircraft is not much greater than current arrangment with the rest of their fleet.
The SF340 is actually very cheap to purchase/lease.
$2-3 million a unit compared to $20-30 million per dash or Embraer, and only carries half as many pax! 3 SAABs on a route out strip an embraer load at 1/3 the investment.
A large number of REX aircraft are owned outright.
If things get tight its easier to fill a 34 seater than a 50-100 seat aircraft.
You can park an aircraft YOU own and it costs only the interest you loose on investment, no interest to pay a lender.
Infrastructure can be sold at market property rates.
The people that will hurt are the ones in the country towns that have been employed for support roles if those services are made redundant.
The only equation that is putting rex under pressure is flight crew, which is a big one!
The SF340 is actually very cheap to purchase/lease.
$2-3 million a unit compared to $20-30 million per dash or Embraer, and only carries half as many pax! 3 SAABs on a route out strip an embraer load at 1/3 the investment.
A large number of REX aircraft are owned outright.
If things get tight its easier to fill a 34 seater than a 50-100 seat aircraft.
You can park an aircraft YOU own and it costs only the interest you loose on investment, no interest to pay a lender.
Infrastructure can be sold at market property rates.
The people that will hurt are the ones in the country towns that have been employed for support roles if those services are made redundant.
The only equation that is putting rex under pressure is flight crew, which is a big one!
43Inches said:
That pressure being due to the share price decline, which appears to be related to the cancellations and route closures. It should be noted that these won't necessarily have a negative impact on the bottom line.
It is worth bearing in mind that REX have forecast profitable operations for the immediate future and that forecast will have taken into account the expected pilot shortages.
To REX staff that may be feeling concerned about the future of the company as a result of reading these threads, I would say to beware of making judgements based on what you read on PPrune, as there are a disproportionate number of posters whose only intent is to denigrate and cause fear and loathing.
There is much about REX to feel optimistic about.
The only equation that is putting rex under pressure is flight crew, which is a big one!
It is worth bearing in mind that REX have forecast profitable operations for the immediate future and that forecast will have taken into account the expected pilot shortages.
To REX staff that may be feeling concerned about the future of the company as a result of reading these threads, I would say to beware of making judgements based on what you read on PPrune, as there are a disproportionate number of posters whose only intent is to denigrate and cause fear and loathing.
There is much about REX to feel optimistic about.
A wise person once told me that the salary someone receives is a reflection of how difficult they are to replace.
So using this axiom it would seem that pilot wages must rise. Aircraft you consistently ignore the point made here that $2-3 more on a ticket price would add substantially to the funds available to pay crews without causing a loss of demand due to the price hike.
It is also not just about the money. It is the way operations staff treat crews when they call them in or try to change a roster at short notice. Showing little respect or "value" for an employee is what is hurting REX not just the dollars.
I once saw a manager hand an overworked pilot a $20 gift voucher for liquorland with a sincere thank you for their efforts. Cost to the company $20, value to the company gained by good will from the pilot, much more than $20.
Crews with low morale cost more to fly aircraft than crews engaged and happy...tyre and brake wear, choosing and chasing optimum levels, pushing ATC for track shortening, all these become too hard when your crews no longer care about the company.
Aircraft in purely technical, economic text book ways, much of what you say is correct but it is the lack of context and human dynamics that lets you down. Strangely enough it is also where the management fall down. They all study MBA's and come out of university knowing the economic theory but cannot manage people because they do not understand people, all they understand is economic systems.
Management incompetence in aviation has been masked for decades by a huge supply of willing crews and a small demand. That situation is ending and so management now need to actually "manage", that is make some decisions and be smarter with how they deal with staff.
Those companies that can retain staff now will survive, the rest will struggle. Bonding for example is a way to make people stay somewhere that they would rather leave. It is a stick. Why not use a carrot? Make the place a great place to work so people DO NOT WANT to leave. Sure for some it is about dollars for others lifestyle, but for MOST it is a balance of the two.
Another example, airlines can give subload seats to staff at no cost to the company, the staff can pay the small admin or FBT costs BUT do all companies do this? NO. Why not? An otherwise empty seat sold to a staff member generates good will and costs nothing. So why is that not done?
Companies the size of REX with a moderate size staff can negotiate with suppliers deals based on their size, such as fuel cards, gym memeberships, car deals, holiday spots etc none of which cost the company anything but generate good will towards the company by staff because the staff SEE that the company does VALUE them.
Your comment above saying that REX do value their staff shows your naivety. How are staff supposed to KNOW if the comapny VALUES them? What tangible example is there? That is why MONEY becomes the currency of VALUE. More VALUE = MORE MONEY. As I say there are other ways but the gene pool of airline management is quite shallow, often the same people who would otherwise be used car salesmen. Can you NAME many avaition managers who had been awarded management awards of any type?
Keep up your posts but remember crew are people NOT economic units. Ignore this at your peril aviation managers.
So using this axiom it would seem that pilot wages must rise. Aircraft you consistently ignore the point made here that $2-3 more on a ticket price would add substantially to the funds available to pay crews without causing a loss of demand due to the price hike.
It is also not just about the money. It is the way operations staff treat crews when they call them in or try to change a roster at short notice. Showing little respect or "value" for an employee is what is hurting REX not just the dollars.
I once saw a manager hand an overworked pilot a $20 gift voucher for liquorland with a sincere thank you for their efforts. Cost to the company $20, value to the company gained by good will from the pilot, much more than $20.
Crews with low morale cost more to fly aircraft than crews engaged and happy...tyre and brake wear, choosing and chasing optimum levels, pushing ATC for track shortening, all these become too hard when your crews no longer care about the company.
Aircraft in purely technical, economic text book ways, much of what you say is correct but it is the lack of context and human dynamics that lets you down. Strangely enough it is also where the management fall down. They all study MBA's and come out of university knowing the economic theory but cannot manage people because they do not understand people, all they understand is economic systems.
Management incompetence in aviation has been masked for decades by a huge supply of willing crews and a small demand. That situation is ending and so management now need to actually "manage", that is make some decisions and be smarter with how they deal with staff.
Those companies that can retain staff now will survive, the rest will struggle. Bonding for example is a way to make people stay somewhere that they would rather leave. It is a stick. Why not use a carrot? Make the place a great place to work so people DO NOT WANT to leave. Sure for some it is about dollars for others lifestyle, but for MOST it is a balance of the two.
Another example, airlines can give subload seats to staff at no cost to the company, the staff can pay the small admin or FBT costs BUT do all companies do this? NO. Why not? An otherwise empty seat sold to a staff member generates good will and costs nothing. So why is that not done?
Companies the size of REX with a moderate size staff can negotiate with suppliers deals based on their size, such as fuel cards, gym memeberships, car deals, holiday spots etc none of which cost the company anything but generate good will towards the company by staff because the staff SEE that the company does VALUE them.
Your comment above saying that REX do value their staff shows your naivety. How are staff supposed to KNOW if the comapny VALUES them? What tangible example is there? That is why MONEY becomes the currency of VALUE. More VALUE = MORE MONEY. As I say there are other ways but the gene pool of airline management is quite shallow, often the same people who would otherwise be used car salesmen. Can you NAME many avaition managers who had been awarded management awards of any type?
Keep up your posts but remember crew are people NOT economic units. Ignore this at your peril aviation managers.
aircraft..............
You said:
.
Why won't they? The only way that I can possibly see that would happen is if the cancellations and route closures were on already unprofitable routes. Is that what you are trying to say?
You also said:
I must be missing something here.
It seems fairly obvious that the WHO (ie., the REX pilots) are now out of the 'optimism' equation, so can you please tell us about the WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY sort of things that REX would currently feel optimistic about??
You said:
It should be noted that these [cancellations and route closures]won't necessarily have a negative impact on the bottom line.
Why won't they? The only way that I can possibly see that would happen is if the cancellations and route closures were on already unprofitable routes. Is that what you are trying to say?
You also said:
There is much about REX to feel optimistic about.
It seems fairly obvious that the WHO (ie., the REX pilots) are now out of the 'optimism' equation, so can you please tell us about the WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY sort of things that REX would currently feel optimistic about??
Nunc est bibendum
I still reckon that if an airline can add a 'Fuel surcharge' when the price of fuel goes up that they can add a 'pilot retention surcharge' for when they are finding it difficult to retain pilots. I reckon an extra $5 per pax as a surcharge and the money to go directly to the crew on a per sector basis would solve a lot some of the immediate problems.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surcharges are merely an airlines way of shifting blame away from their own incompetence. Fuel surcharge - BLAME the oil company. Pilot Retention surcharge - BLAME the pilots. Taxes - BLAME the government.
This is the only industry that cops out. Why not just incorporate all this into a single charge, called "the total cost of the fare"?
This is the only industry that cops out. Why not just incorporate all this into a single charge, called "the total cost of the fare"?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E&H
Icarus 2001, Your comments are very true. I left Rex and the aviation industry after 20 years, in 2006, for the same reasons as well as the fact that in todays economy 100K is the new 50K. In other words if you are not earning 100K it is not possible to buy a house, educate your kids, have a holiday every year etc. Managers who know how to get the best out of people can do so for very little. It is unfortunate that this practice is no longer allowed under the new economics of bean counters-they are starting to reap what they sow.
Your comment about a salary being equivalent to how difficult a person is to replace is very true and well known and so the present state of affairs is of the airlines own making. A good example of how management can react in the positive is brought to mind regards Henry Ford. He erected No Smoking signs in his factory because he believed the practice was costing him money. Not long after he came across some of his men standing under the No Smoking sign and they were all lighting up cigarettes. Now in his day, he could have sacked them on the spot, however he simply lit up a cigar with them and when he had finished he handed all the men a cigar with the rider that in future they were not to smoke in his factory any more. Moral of the story was that he didn't have to replace his men, and they didn't smoke on his time any more.
The story they are peddling about the high cost of training is only part of the equation and trying to get the government to pay for training while well meaning is simply denial on the airlines part and a ploy to keep wages as low as possible. No one in their right mind is going to fork out 100K to land a job which may pay 80K in return and should you want to step up to the majors you will have to pay another 30-40K for endorsement costs.
Your comment about a salary being equivalent to how difficult a person is to replace is very true and well known and so the present state of affairs is of the airlines own making. A good example of how management can react in the positive is brought to mind regards Henry Ford. He erected No Smoking signs in his factory because he believed the practice was costing him money. Not long after he came across some of his men standing under the No Smoking sign and they were all lighting up cigarettes. Now in his day, he could have sacked them on the spot, however he simply lit up a cigar with them and when he had finished he handed all the men a cigar with the rider that in future they were not to smoke in his factory any more. Moral of the story was that he didn't have to replace his men, and they didn't smoke on his time any more.
The story they are peddling about the high cost of training is only part of the equation and trying to get the government to pay for training while well meaning is simply denial on the airlines part and a ploy to keep wages as low as possible. No one in their right mind is going to fork out 100K to land a job which may pay 80K in return and should you want to step up to the majors you will have to pay another 30-40K for endorsement costs.
Last edited by E&H; 7th Nov 2007 at 09:23.
Nunc est bibendum
Rumours suggest that QF are starting to think very seriously about having to pay for the cadetships themselves. I think the applicants to REX will drop to nil if that occurs.
aircraft...............
In post #62 you said:
I wonder? With four 'price-sensitive' company announcements since 04 Oct 2007, and closing share price from $2.35 on 01 Oct 2007 to $2.12 yesterday (07 Oct 2007), they'd need to have nerves of steel I'd reckon. 
Source: http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/C...Code=REX#price
In post #80 yesterday, you concluded that the REX's recently announced flight cancellations and route closures won't necessarily have a negative impact on its bottom line, and that there:
Given the decline in the REX share price over the past few weeks, I'm at a loss to understand you arrived at those conclusions. So it will be interesting to watch what 'value' the market puts on REX shares over the coming weeks, won't it?
In post #62 you said:
the shareholders [of REX] have considerable nouse, and you would most probably find they have confidence in the management
Source: http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/C...Code=REX#price
In post #80 yesterday, you concluded that the REX's recently announced flight cancellations and route closures won't necessarily have a negative impact on its bottom line, and that there:
is much about REX to fell optimistic about.
SIUYA,
Apologies for the late reply but unable to do so any earlier.
I did say that flight and route cancellations will not necessarily have a negative impact on the REX bottom line, but my wording was a bit loose in how I said this.
The route cancellations should have a negative impact on the bottom line as REX wouldn't have commenced on the route unless it was expected to give a generally positive impact. Because of crewing difficulties, however, if the continuation of a marginal route was to result in frequent enough cancellation of more lucrative flights elsewhere, then the discontinuation of the marginal route may well result in less losses (which is a positive impact on the bottom line).
Cancellations of individual flights will have the same positive effect given certain combinations of pilot unavailability and low load factor.
You also asked why I said:
I said that because:
1. The company is in a strong financial position;
2. The company has excellent management, and
3. The company is quite possibly the most "lean and mean" operator in Australia.
Some posters to these REX threads would sooner swallow broken glass than agree with me that the management is excellent, but the simple reality is that those posters seem to live in a cocoon and so wouldn't know good management if it fell on them.
Icarus2001,
I have got a really big problem with the suggestion being made here. It is made frequently in threads that relate to pilot pay increases.
The biggest and most glaring failure of this theory is that, if it were true, all airlines would have done it long ago! That aside, the calculation that yields these tiny amounts is so simplistic it cannot hope to be anything like accurate. I doubt it is possible to come up with a more simplistic calculation.
Simplicity aside, the big flaw in the calculation is that it assumes 100% load factors before and after the ticket price rise. And, the figures quoted never allow for GST and other taxes/charges that are a percentage of the total fare.
Finally, if a levy was imposed to facilitate higher pay for aircrew, how would the engineers, flight attendants and administrative staff feel about missing out on those pay rises? Some posters here seem to think that pilots are the only absolute requisite for a flight to happen, but these other personnel are equally as important.
The cost to the company is more than $20 - a certain, relatively small, amount of administration is required to achieve this gesture and administration does not come free. If this gesture is repeated many times daily then the administration cost ceases to be insignificant.
Whilst I don't doubt some disgruntled pilots will, on occasion, allow their flight to be a little "more expensive", the fact that this practice is in contravention of the ethics of commercial pilots means that it probably occurs less frequently than thought. Would a doctor allow his patient to die because he is cranky that he didn't get a pay rise?
This is true for some managers but cannot be true for all. Like every profession, some will be excellent, most will be average and a small amount, poor.
Great idea in theory, but in practice this can turn out to be unbelievably expensive.
It does cost something. There is a not insignificant amount of administration required for this to happen.
Jetstar won some award for management recently (within the last few months).
The managers are people too, so they know all about what it is to be a person and how satisfying it can be to provide the little "human touches". Those "human touches" cost money of course, and unfortunately, the cold, harsh economic realities can sometimes make them impossible to afford.
And, they can backfire on the management - just look at how the staff tend to react when their little perks are scaled down - or removed entirely.
Apologies for the late reply but unable to do so any earlier.
I did say that flight and route cancellations will not necessarily have a negative impact on the REX bottom line, but my wording was a bit loose in how I said this.
The route cancellations should have a negative impact on the bottom line as REX wouldn't have commenced on the route unless it was expected to give a generally positive impact. Because of crewing difficulties, however, if the continuation of a marginal route was to result in frequent enough cancellation of more lucrative flights elsewhere, then the discontinuation of the marginal route may well result in less losses (which is a positive impact on the bottom line).
Cancellations of individual flights will have the same positive effect given certain combinations of pilot unavailability and low load factor.
You also asked why I said:
There is much about REX to feel optimistic about.
1. The company is in a strong financial position;
2. The company has excellent management, and
3. The company is quite possibly the most "lean and mean" operator in Australia.
Some posters to these REX threads would sooner swallow broken glass than agree with me that the management is excellent, but the simple reality is that those posters seem to live in a cocoon and so wouldn't know good management if it fell on them.
Icarus2001,
... you consistently ignore the point made here that $2-3 more on a ticket price would add substantially to the funds available to pay crews without causing a loss of demand due to the price hike.
The biggest and most glaring failure of this theory is that, if it were true, all airlines would have done it long ago! That aside, the calculation that yields these tiny amounts is so simplistic it cannot hope to be anything like accurate. I doubt it is possible to come up with a more simplistic calculation.
Simplicity aside, the big flaw in the calculation is that it assumes 100% load factors before and after the ticket price rise. And, the figures quoted never allow for GST and other taxes/charges that are a percentage of the total fare.
Finally, if a levy was imposed to facilitate higher pay for aircrew, how would the engineers, flight attendants and administrative staff feel about missing out on those pay rises? Some posters here seem to think that pilots are the only absolute requisite for a flight to happen, but these other personnel are equally as important.
I once saw a manager hand an overworked pilot a $20 gift voucher for liquorland with a sincere thank you for their efforts. Cost to the company $20, value to the company gained by good will from the pilot, much more than $20.
Crews with low morale cost more to fly aircraft than crews engaged and happy...
They all study MBA's and come out of university knowing the economic theory but cannot manage people because they do not understand people, all they understand is economic systems.
Why not use a carrot? Make the place a great place to work so people DO NOT WANT to leave.
An otherwise empty seat sold to a staff member generates good will and costs nothing.
Can you NAME many avaition managers who had been awarded management awards of any type?
... crew are people NOT economic units. Ignore this at your peril aviation managers.
And, they can backfire on the management - just look at how the staff tend to react when their little perks are scaled down - or removed entirely.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Steerage
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The managers are people too, so they know all about what it is to be a person and how satisfying it can be to provide the little "human touches"
Absolutely fcuking priceless, quote of the century.
