REx Management – “OUTthere” or “OUT of there”
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was going to post something constructive to the thread but have thought better. It's actually quite entertaining reading his rot. And as much as I dislike the use of name calling it sure does fit here. What a FCUKHEAD! Isn't anonimity grand. The prick would never work another day in this industry if he had the guns to post under his own name. Show's how convicted of his mindless prattle he is. Gutless wonder.
According to what is listed on CommSec:
REX
Current Directors
Mr Russell Hodge Non-Executive Director, Pel-Air Operations
Mr John Wallace Sharp Deputy Chairman, Independent Director
Mr David Miller Executive Director
Mr Kim Hai Lim Executive Chairman
Mr James (Jim) Davis Executive Director Operations
Mr Thian Soo Lee Non-Executive Director
Mr Robert Winnel Independent Director
Mr Stephen Jermyn Non-Executive Director
Major Shareholders
Canberra Air Pty Limited
Kim Lark Lim
Kerk Chuan Seah
Kim Hai Lim
Joo Chye Chua
Ming Yew See Toh
Joe Tiau Tjoa
Canberra Air Pty Limited holds about 7.67% of the shares
Kim Hai Lim holds 19.00% of the shares
Joe Tiau Tjoa holds 11.50% of the shares
Kim Lark Lim holds about 9.97% of the shares
Kerk Chuan Seah holds about 9.03% of the shares
Kim Hai Lim holds about 6.83% of the shares
Joo Chye Chua holds about 6.48% of the shares
Ming Yew See Toh holds about 6.48% of the shares
Joe Tiau Tjoa holds about 5.76% of the shares
That leaves about 17% of the shares held elsewhere
REX
Current Directors
Mr Russell Hodge Non-Executive Director, Pel-Air Operations
Mr John Wallace Sharp Deputy Chairman, Independent Director
Mr David Miller Executive Director
Mr Kim Hai Lim Executive Chairman
Mr James (Jim) Davis Executive Director Operations
Mr Thian Soo Lee Non-Executive Director
Mr Robert Winnel Independent Director
Mr Stephen Jermyn Non-Executive Director
Major Shareholders
Canberra Air Pty Limited
Kim Lark Lim
Kerk Chuan Seah
Kim Hai Lim
Joo Chye Chua
Ming Yew See Toh
Joe Tiau Tjoa
Canberra Air Pty Limited holds about 7.67% of the shares
Kim Hai Lim holds 19.00% of the shares
Joe Tiau Tjoa holds 11.50% of the shares
Kim Lark Lim holds about 9.97% of the shares
Kerk Chuan Seah holds about 9.03% of the shares
Kim Hai Lim holds about 6.83% of the shares
Joo Chye Chua holds about 6.48% of the shares
Ming Yew See Toh holds about 6.48% of the shares
Joe Tiau Tjoa holds about 5.76% of the shares
That leaves about 17% of the shares held elsewhere
You guys just don't get it. If you just took a look around you, you would. But if that is too hard, you only need to read between the lines of every second PPRUNE thread.
Terms and conditions for pilots, all over the world, are steadily reducing and have been so for decades. With booming economic conditions you will occasionally see short term reversals to this trend, but these are just little wiggles on the line that represents the long term trend.
The airline pilot strike of 1989 was an attempt by pilots to change the direction of that line. There have been numerous other attempts by pilot groups around the world. American Airlines pilots are currently contemplating another attempt, as are the NJS pilots.
My money is on the aviation industry to brush aside these attempts, should they occur. That means, I am betting against the pilots to succeed. The aviation industry is just too good at getting its own way.
The fundamental reason for the decline in T&Cs, of course, is that everything in aviation has had to become steadily cheaper to facilitate the ever cheaper air travel for the people of the world - cheaper aircraft, engines, maintenance, management - and cheaper pilots.
On top of all that, aviation has always been the world's least profitable industry. If you average out the profits made by the world scheduled airline industry for the 54 years prior to 2001, you find that each operator averages $1,000 (USD) profit per year. One thousand dollars - how's that for razor thin profits?
Problems and solutions...
To the people of the world, enjoying plentiful and cheap air travel, there is no problem.
To the industry, the problem is a shortage of pilots and an inability to train new pilots quickly enough. There is only one practical solution to that, as I said in my previous post, and that is pilotless airliners. The only question about pilotless airliners is when - in 10 years time, 15, or 20? Would anybody like to come out and declare that there will never be pilotless airliners?
To the pilots, the problem is a remuneration level that is headed for the poverty line, but as I said in my previous post, there is no practical solution to this problem. Participants to this debate must realise that, just because there is a problem, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a solution. The profession of airline pilot would by no means be the first in the world that has been made extinct by the market that it serves, and every one of those extinctions started out as just "a problem".
Hugh Jarse,
Can you elaborate?
To the idealist, yes, but to the pragmatist, no. Paying the pilots more money is not a realistic solution if it results in the company going broke.
This is a particularly widespread misconception. I'm not saying they shouldn't be consulted, but the reality is that front-line staff tend to have only a "small picture" view of the marketplace.
I believe this statement is just a populist way of saying the management need to "be nice" to the workers. Populist? maybe that should be "political".
How on earth can you say that the management doesn't understand its workforce? Every one of those managers are workers too, working for somebody higher up. Every one has worked in more lowly, "front-line" positions earlier in their lives. Do they forget what its like to be an ordinary worker when they move up? Does a parent forget what its like to be a teenager?
No matter how hard you try, the vast majority of workers do not want to be engaged. They just want to be allowed to do their jobs without fuss, collect their paycheques then go home.
As for not managing its workforce: How is it possible to do this? The only way I can think of doing this is to give them no job descriptions, rosters or tasks - just let them wander around the workplace doing whatever takes their fancy, in other words. I'm certain that this is not what happens at REX. Of course there will be rostering/tasking mistakes made, from time to time, but this is what happens when you have humans as managers.
I am really beginning to think that when you said "REX is unable or unwilling to understand, engage and manage its workforce", you really meant that REX are just not being nice enough.
So, are the workers understanding and engaging REX? Or should I say, are the workers being nice to REX?
If the REX pilots are anything like the pilots in the company I presently work for (and the companies I have worked at), then it will be the case that a significant number of them treat the company with disdain - to be used and abused then dropped like a hot potato when something better comes along.
It never seems to occur to these individuals that it is their own disregard for the company that is being reflected back when, following some dealing with management, they don't get the favourable result they were expecting.
But I have also seen good relationships, and it is noticeable how much more often the pilot gets the "favourable result" in those cases.
About the disaffected staff at REX that "don't want to leave, but are", you said:
Hugh Jarse, you are in the position to have asked them why, and, you will have thought outside the square when seeking a solution.
What do you come up with?
Terms and conditions for pilots, all over the world, are steadily reducing and have been so for decades. With booming economic conditions you will occasionally see short term reversals to this trend, but these are just little wiggles on the line that represents the long term trend.
The airline pilot strike of 1989 was an attempt by pilots to change the direction of that line. There have been numerous other attempts by pilot groups around the world. American Airlines pilots are currently contemplating another attempt, as are the NJS pilots.
My money is on the aviation industry to brush aside these attempts, should they occur. That means, I am betting against the pilots to succeed. The aviation industry is just too good at getting its own way.
The fundamental reason for the decline in T&Cs, of course, is that everything in aviation has had to become steadily cheaper to facilitate the ever cheaper air travel for the people of the world - cheaper aircraft, engines, maintenance, management - and cheaper pilots.
On top of all that, aviation has always been the world's least profitable industry. If you average out the profits made by the world scheduled airline industry for the 54 years prior to 2001, you find that each operator averages $1,000 (USD) profit per year. One thousand dollars - how's that for razor thin profits?
Problems and solutions...
To the people of the world, enjoying plentiful and cheap air travel, there is no problem.
To the industry, the problem is a shortage of pilots and an inability to train new pilots quickly enough. There is only one practical solution to that, as I said in my previous post, and that is pilotless airliners. The only question about pilotless airliners is when - in 10 years time, 15, or 20? Would anybody like to come out and declare that there will never be pilotless airliners?
To the pilots, the problem is a remuneration level that is headed for the poverty line, but as I said in my previous post, there is no practical solution to this problem. Participants to this debate must realise that, just because there is a problem, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a solution. The profession of airline pilot would by no means be the first in the world that has been made extinct by the market that it serves, and every one of those extinctions started out as just "a problem".
Hugh Jarse,
Other airlines and GA operators are taking steps in the right direction with significant pay rises and retention payments...
There are always realistic solutions, aircraft.
... who has a better handle on the marketplace than your front-line staff?
REX isn't alone in its inability or unwillingness to understand, engage and manage its workforce.
How on earth can you say that the management doesn't understand its workforce? Every one of those managers are workers too, working for somebody higher up. Every one has worked in more lowly, "front-line" positions earlier in their lives. Do they forget what its like to be an ordinary worker when they move up? Does a parent forget what its like to be a teenager?
No matter how hard you try, the vast majority of workers do not want to be engaged. They just want to be allowed to do their jobs without fuss, collect their paycheques then go home.
As for not managing its workforce: How is it possible to do this? The only way I can think of doing this is to give them no job descriptions, rosters or tasks - just let them wander around the workplace doing whatever takes their fancy, in other words. I'm certain that this is not what happens at REX. Of course there will be rostering/tasking mistakes made, from time to time, but this is what happens when you have humans as managers.
I am really beginning to think that when you said "REX is unable or unwilling to understand, engage and manage its workforce", you really meant that REX are just not being nice enough.
So, are the workers understanding and engaging REX? Or should I say, are the workers being nice to REX?
If the REX pilots are anything like the pilots in the company I presently work for (and the companies I have worked at), then it will be the case that a significant number of them treat the company with disdain - to be used and abused then dropped like a hot potato when something better comes along.
It never seems to occur to these individuals that it is their own disregard for the company that is being reflected back when, following some dealing with management, they don't get the favourable result they were expecting.
But I have also seen good relationships, and it is noticeable how much more often the pilot gets the "favourable result" in those cases.
About the disaffected staff at REX that "don't want to leave, but are", you said:
Ask them why, and THINK OUTSIDE THE SQUARE when formulating the solution
What do you come up with?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft, I did not read all of your last lot of dribble. I not only lost interest posts ago, but really lost all hope that you had half a brain mid way throuh your last post.
Let me explain (and i'll keep it simple)!!!!!!
I work in GA. I have recently gainded a 30% payrise (not though Skippers) for the same job for the same company. If a GA company can afford this, so should an RPT co.
Of course I fully understand where you are coming from. 12 months ago you where looking for advise on your first job. Now you are a Baron driver and you know all. I bow down to your knowladge.....
Let me explain (and i'll keep it simple)!!!!!!
I work in GA. I have recently gainded a 30% payrise (not though Skippers) for the same job for the same company. If a GA company can afford this, so should an RPT co.
Of course I fully understand where you are coming from. 12 months ago you where looking for advise on your first job. Now you are a Baron driver and you know all. I bow down to your knowladge.....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Wise Man Once Said
Tell a man he's an idiot - he'll get defensive;
Show a man he's an idiot - he'll get angry;
Prove a man is an idiot - he'll say "You just don't get it .....".
Unfortunately (and according to my longstanding, yet to be published theorum on idiots: the Grand Unified Fcukwit Theorum (GUFT)), the third law states that:
3. The idiot never knows he's an idiot.
The first two laws are also demonstrated to certain degrees by our man aircraft:
1. There's never a need to be an idiot.
2. There's always another idiot.
Hence, aircraft exists; unneccessarily and without the possibility of being otherwise. I therefore suggest we all focus on other matters such as holding back the tide, rather than the relatively futile pastime of showing aircraft the error of his ways.
Why not a nice chat about Geoff Dixon instead???
Icarus
Show a man he's an idiot - he'll get angry;
Prove a man is an idiot - he'll say "You just don't get it .....".
Unfortunately (and according to my longstanding, yet to be published theorum on idiots: the Grand Unified Fcukwit Theorum (GUFT)), the third law states that:
3. The idiot never knows he's an idiot.
The first two laws are also demonstrated to certain degrees by our man aircraft:
1. There's never a need to be an idiot.
2. There's always another idiot.
Hence, aircraft exists; unneccessarily and without the possibility of being otherwise. I therefore suggest we all focus on other matters such as holding back the tide, rather than the relatively futile pastime of showing aircraft the error of his ways.
Why not a nice chat about Geoff Dixon instead???
Icarus
Unbelievable! At the tender age of 23 years, an ATPL and a Baron endorsement, aircraft claims to have solved the very problems I struggled with for three decades in airline executive management - problems I still do not have the answers to!
Jarse and Dick are close to the mark. Australia is at a time of record low unemployment and the pilot shortage is an industry problem; no carrier is immune.
I manage a corporation with 500 employees, predominantly in rural and regional Australia where unemployment in some towns is < 1%. As a package deal, staff terms and conditions have been progressively improved in order to compete with other regional labour demands. Despite an average 30% increase in administration staff wages, employer funded staff development training, more flexible employment and a further $1 mill investment in staff living accommodation in the bush, our administration staff attrition rate was over 30% in the past year.
99% of staff voluntarily signed AWAs in the past year, those AWAs providing income, terms and conditions in aggregate up to 50% better than the previous outdated Award system.
Australia has a deficit of workers to meet the demands of an increasingly affluent and aging society. Similarly, the airline industry has insufficient qualified and experienced technical staff to meet the ever increasing demands for air travel.
REX (or any other airline) could improve it's terms, conditions and remuneration to solve it's own problem, but it would be at the expense of another industry sector. And in the case of REX (and all regional airlines), individual desire for personal development will always see staff moving up to larger, more sophisticated airline aircraft types.
Improved terms, conditions and remuneration is a part of the solution. Whilst some erroneously blame government for recent interest rate increases, the reason is inflation, fueled in part by significant increases in wages. Expect further wages increases, a result of the increasing demand for labour, resulting in further inflation and interest rate increases.
Unlike aircraft's simplistic and illogical solutions, I recognise the problems but don't have the answers!
Jarse and Dick are close to the mark. Australia is at a time of record low unemployment and the pilot shortage is an industry problem; no carrier is immune.
I manage a corporation with 500 employees, predominantly in rural and regional Australia where unemployment in some towns is < 1%. As a package deal, staff terms and conditions have been progressively improved in order to compete with other regional labour demands. Despite an average 30% increase in administration staff wages, employer funded staff development training, more flexible employment and a further $1 mill investment in staff living accommodation in the bush, our administration staff attrition rate was over 30% in the past year.
99% of staff voluntarily signed AWAs in the past year, those AWAs providing income, terms and conditions in aggregate up to 50% better than the previous outdated Award system.
Australia has a deficit of workers to meet the demands of an increasingly affluent and aging society. Similarly, the airline industry has insufficient qualified and experienced technical staff to meet the ever increasing demands for air travel.
REX (or any other airline) could improve it's terms, conditions and remuneration to solve it's own problem, but it would be at the expense of another industry sector. And in the case of REX (and all regional airlines), individual desire for personal development will always see staff moving up to larger, more sophisticated airline aircraft types.
Improved terms, conditions and remuneration is a part of the solution. Whilst some erroneously blame government for recent interest rate increases, the reason is inflation, fueled in part by significant increases in wages. Expect further wages increases, a result of the increasing demand for labour, resulting in further inflation and interest rate increases.
Unlike aircraft's simplistic and illogical solutions, I recognise the problems but don't have the answers!
Last edited by Torres; 17th Nov 2007 at 20:50.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your question, aircraft:
Surveillance Aust. and Skippers are but 2 operators who have reviewed (increased) remuneration on their turboprop fleets. There is at least 1 large Regional Airline which has introduced a retention scheme for its pilots. (You can work out who it is). Some parts of GA are offering unprecedented increases in salary in an attempt to retain staff.
While I won't comment on the merit of these schemes, what I will state is that these are examples of a "can-do" management style. Well, sort of.
Funny you say that. That must make the aforementioned airline management idealists? You can pull all the theories out of your Wikipedia aircraft, but this problem is industry-wide and needs a realistic approach to the solution, which clearly you haven't offered as yet. To cop out and say there is no solution demonstrates a lack of lateral thinking. You can do better than that.
You will note that I have avoided the remuneration aspect of this topic. You claim that any pay rise might send airlines broke. That's a very simplistic assertion to which I'll give you a simplistic answer: Increase fares to cover the cost. (not saying that's the answer) The airlines and transport companies did it with fuel. Why should it be different with labour costs? Quite clearly there has to be a balance. This is evidenced by my first answer. Companies are slowly coming to the realisation that part of the answer is to pay more to retain staff. How they cover this is up to them. Without staff there is no company. A fine balancing act indeed....
Ask Dick Smith what he thinks about that one. In fact, most progressive companies go even one step further and regularly place senior managers on the front line for the very reason I stated - To find out how their product is doing, and where they need to do things better. This, of course in conjunction with talking to your front-line staff. Good front-line staff (if you can attract them to your company) have far more than a "small picture" of the market. I'm yet to witness this management style in the airline environment.
True - to a point. You are talking about 2 different subjects: Understanding your staff and understanding your market. The difficulty is that once you move away from the front line (particularly in an industry which is changing so rapidly) you WILL lose some of both commodities. (See above)
Aircraft, I am not in a position to ask REX staff about their situation as I'm not employed by REX. However, if you ask anyone in any industry why they want to leave a particular company I'll bet lack understanding the employee's needs and expectations is near the top of the list.
I think a few REX people may have answered your question already (but you don't seem to be listening)
This is the very reason airlines are in this predicament. They are neither seeking input from nor listening to their staff.
As for thinking outside the square - I can think of several successful innovations I've made in business which have benefited both parties at little or no cost. I have had the good fortune to have experienced a reasonably long career prior to getting into aviation. Have you?
As a pragmatist, you probably won't understand how or why looking after your staff works, but I'll give you one example anyway of how it worked for me:
I had several mobile technicians working for me (a business I was running in the ACT. No, not a brothel as some have suggested). Most of them lived within a few minutes drive of our customers, (mainly in the outer suburbs). Company policy was no private use of company vehicles. I persuaded my boss to trial something new which involved a review of that particular policy. When required, I would coordinate their jobs to finish near home. From their last job they could take the vehicle home, providing they started their first job from home the next day.
The benefits were twofold: A huge increase in productivity. We could now fit 2 extra jobs per day that our opposition could not. Operating costs slashed because the vehicle and crew was virtually on-site and did not have to travel 80km return for 2 jobs. An increased client base because of our increased flexibility in service delivery (can-do) There's that word again
The advantages to my staff? They saved on their own vehicle running costs and travel time to/from work. In most instances they would be home with their families earlier than they otherwise would have been, had they needed to bring their vehicle back to the warehouse.
This trial was so successful that company policy was changed to permit this type of operation throughout the business. A win-win for everyone!
The intangible benefit (to senior management, until I drew it to their attention) was increased job satisfaction, increased morale, virtually non-existent absenteeism and unprecedented staff retention.
This was but one simple example of thinking outside the square and engaging and managing your workforce. All that without an MBA
One final point:
I could not disagree with you enough on that statement. My example above dispels that statement. The terms in one of my previous posts - Lifestyle, career expectations and morale are all basic aspects of employment which will engage your staff. These are all things that CAN and must be addressed. The above example addressed 2 out of these 3 aspects. IMHO, these are the sole remaining factors (apart from remuneration) that are affecting staff retention in the current climate. People have a fundamental psychological NEED to be engaged in their work. It is a unique part of our nature that makes human beings different to other primates. It appears you hold the opinion that taking an interest in your staff's wellbeing and looking for ways to make things better is a sign of a weak management technique. I guess that makes me a weak (but successful) manager.
The anger and frustration being expressed in this thread by other contributors supports my assertions. They are all people screaming out to be engaged by their employer.
I don't think I'll bother responding to your posts anymore aircraft. Clearly you are incapable of seeing what is obvious to the average person. I'll leave the last word to you (as no doubt you'll have it).
I really hope REX and the rest of the industry survives. Until some fundamental management philosophies change it looks increasingly unlikely.
Good luck to your family.
Sorry 'bout the long-winded post.
Surveillance Aust. and Skippers are but 2 operators who have reviewed (increased) remuneration on their turboprop fleets. There is at least 1 large Regional Airline which has introduced a retention scheme for its pilots. (You can work out who it is). Some parts of GA are offering unprecedented increases in salary in an attempt to retain staff.
While I won't comment on the merit of these schemes, what I will state is that these are examples of a "can-do" management style. Well, sort of.
To the idealist, yes, but to the pragmatist, no. Paying the pilots more money is not a realistic solution if it results in the company going broke.
You will note that I have avoided the remuneration aspect of this topic. You claim that any pay rise might send airlines broke. That's a very simplistic assertion to which I'll give you a simplistic answer: Increase fares to cover the cost. (not saying that's the answer) The airlines and transport companies did it with fuel. Why should it be different with labour costs? Quite clearly there has to be a balance. This is evidenced by my first answer. Companies are slowly coming to the realisation that part of the answer is to pay more to retain staff. How they cover this is up to them. Without staff there is no company. A fine balancing act indeed....
This is a particularly widespread misconception. I'm not saying they shouldn't be consulted, but the reality is that front-line staff tend to have only a "small picture" view of the marketplace.
I believe this statement is just a populist way of saying the management need to "be nice" to the workers. Populist? maybe that should be "political".
How on earth can you say that the management doesn't understand its workforce? Every one of those managers are workers too, working for somebody higher up. Every one has worked in more lowly, "front-line" positions earlier in their lives. Do they forget what its like to be an ordinary worker when they move up? Does a parent forget what its like to be a teenager?
How on earth can you say that the management doesn't understand its workforce? Every one of those managers are workers too, working for somebody higher up. Every one has worked in more lowly, "front-line" positions earlier in their lives. Do they forget what its like to be an ordinary worker when they move up? Does a parent forget what its like to be a teenager?
Hugh Jarse, you are in the position to have asked them why, and, you will have thought outside the square when seeking a solution.
What do you come up with?
What do you come up with?
I think a few REX people may have answered your question already (but you don't seem to be listening)
This is the very reason airlines are in this predicament. They are neither seeking input from nor listening to their staff.As for thinking outside the square - I can think of several successful innovations I've made in business which have benefited both parties at little or no cost. I have had the good fortune to have experienced a reasonably long career prior to getting into aviation. Have you?
As a pragmatist, you probably won't understand how or why looking after your staff works, but I'll give you one example anyway of how it worked for me:
I had several mobile technicians working for me (a business I was running in the ACT. No, not a brothel as some have suggested). Most of them lived within a few minutes drive of our customers, (mainly in the outer suburbs). Company policy was no private use of company vehicles. I persuaded my boss to trial something new which involved a review of that particular policy. When required, I would coordinate their jobs to finish near home. From their last job they could take the vehicle home, providing they started their first job from home the next day.
The benefits were twofold: A huge increase in productivity. We could now fit 2 extra jobs per day that our opposition could not. Operating costs slashed because the vehicle and crew was virtually on-site and did not have to travel 80km return for 2 jobs. An increased client base because of our increased flexibility in service delivery (can-do) There's that word again
The advantages to my staff? They saved on their own vehicle running costs and travel time to/from work. In most instances they would be home with their families earlier than they otherwise would have been, had they needed to bring their vehicle back to the warehouse.
This trial was so successful that company policy was changed to permit this type of operation throughout the business. A win-win for everyone!
The intangible benefit (to senior management, until I drew it to their attention) was increased job satisfaction, increased morale, virtually non-existent absenteeism and unprecedented staff retention.
This was but one simple example of thinking outside the square and engaging and managing your workforce. All that without an MBA
One final point:
No matter how hard you try, the vast majority of workers do not want to be engaged. They just want to be allowed to do their jobs without fuss, collect their paycheques then go home.
The anger and frustration being expressed in this thread by other contributors supports my assertions. They are all people screaming out to be engaged by their employer.
I don't think I'll bother responding to your posts anymore aircraft. Clearly you are incapable of seeing what is obvious to the average person. I'll leave the last word to you (as no doubt you'll have it).
I really hope REX and the rest of the industry survives. Until some fundamental management philosophies change it looks increasingly unlikely.
Good luck to your family.
Sorry 'bout the long-winded post.
Last edited by Hugh Jarse; 17th Nov 2007 at 20:57.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's pointless talking about anything with aircraft as he is either unable to understand reality or he is just trolling.
If you are in GA, aircraft....You will be there for a long time
If you are in GA, aircraft....You will be there for a long time
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft!!...thanks for the "you just don't get it" line...I always know it will be a pi$$ funny post when you bring that one out, although its getting a tad old. Have you got any different material?!?
Most comedians try to mix it up a bit, but if that sort of stuff is all you've got thats fine too...still the funniest crap I've read all year.
Most comedians try to mix it up a bit, but if that sort of stuff is all you've got thats fine too...still the funniest crap I've read all year.
Jarse. Thanks for highlighting aircraft's principal IR theories. I must admit after his first few posts, I didn't bother to read his posts in detail.
Unbelievable! Nothing could be further than the truth!
My staff are very well informed, actively engage with management and the Board, have "taken ownership" of our problems and participate in the management decision process.
Improved terms, conditions and remuneration resulted in very significantly improved corporate profits last financial year, in a very competitive industry!!!
"To the idealist, yes, but to the pragmatist, no. Paying the pilots more money is not a realistic solution if it results in the company going broke."
and........
"This is a particularly widespread misconception. I'm not saying they shouldn't be consulted, but the reality is that front-line staff tend to have only a "small picture" view of the marketplace."
and........
"This is a particularly widespread misconception. I'm not saying they shouldn't be consulted, but the reality is that front-line staff tend to have only a "small picture" view of the marketplace."
My staff are very well informed, actively engage with management and the Board, have "taken ownership" of our problems and participate in the management decision process.
Improved terms, conditions and remuneration resulted in very significantly improved corporate profits last financial year, in a very competitive industry!!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The laws of averages
Aircraft said:
Someone quoting Warren Buffett here? Didn't Warren Buffett once say "Any right-minded capitalist who had seen the Wrights' contraption take to the skies in Kitty Hawk might have shot it down and saved investors 100 years of agony". Buffett argued, airlines as a whole hadn't netted a dime since 1903.
Averages and cross-market accumulations are always interesting. If you average all the gains and all the losses of actual trades on the stock market, I think you'll find they average out to zero.
On a similar basis, the average Australian possesses one boob and one testicle. Approximately.
(sampling error -0001%, SD=0.9999, other terms and conditions apply).
Net returns for an industry where some players are producing stand-out returns (SIA, Qantas, for example) simply highlight the differences between management that can turn a buck and management that can't.
Do QF or SIA make world-leading profits by paying world's lowest salaries?
Airlines are price-makers, not price-takers. Of course there are competitive pressures, but cars and buses and to some extent trains all use the same hydrocarbon based fuels or derivatives thereof, and the same cost pressures apply.
Noticed how the price of an airline ticket is now markedly MORE expensive than it was in the immediate post 9/11 environment, when less people wanted to fly?
The thing is that all airlines are forced to become low-cost carriers in order to survive. Low-cost does not equate to low-price. Airlines are forced to compete for scant resources - customers, staff, fuel, routes, slots, real estate (terminal space), sometimes even for aircraft. The airline that juggles the cost and price pressures best with the available resources will give the best return to its shareholders.
Pilots are just another resource. A resource that has its own market, which these days is global. A pilot suitably qualified could work for a small island hopper, a mainline, or go play in the great big sandpit. In fact. of all the resources that have to be juggled, the pilot is probably one of the most flexible. A terminal in Dubbo can't be moved to become a terminal in Dallas, Devonport or Dubai, at least, not economically, whereas the appropriately-qualified pilot can redeploy her/himself to those places at very little notice and very little expense.
If I ran an airline, I'd be careful to maintain my most valuable, and easily lost, resources, if I understood that they were critical to my strategic capability of providing a service to my customers.
Not properly understanding the criticality of key resources, or treating any of those key resources with disdain, will surely result in the business going downhill, and not very slowly.
______
VH-CU
On top of all that, aviation has always been the world's least profitable industry. If you average out the profits made by the world scheduled airline industry for the 54 years prior to 2001, you find that each operator averages $1,000 (USD) profit per year. One thousand dollars - how's that for razor thin profits?
Averages and cross-market accumulations are always interesting. If you average all the gains and all the losses of actual trades on the stock market, I think you'll find they average out to zero.
On a similar basis, the average Australian possesses one boob and one testicle. Approximately.
(sampling error -0001%, SD=0.9999, other terms and conditions apply).
Net returns for an industry where some players are producing stand-out returns (SIA, Qantas, for example) simply highlight the differences between management that can turn a buck and management that can't.
Do QF or SIA make world-leading profits by paying world's lowest salaries?
Airlines are price-makers, not price-takers. Of course there are competitive pressures, but cars and buses and to some extent trains all use the same hydrocarbon based fuels or derivatives thereof, and the same cost pressures apply.
Noticed how the price of an airline ticket is now markedly MORE expensive than it was in the immediate post 9/11 environment, when less people wanted to fly?
The thing is that all airlines are forced to become low-cost carriers in order to survive. Low-cost does not equate to low-price. Airlines are forced to compete for scant resources - customers, staff, fuel, routes, slots, real estate (terminal space), sometimes even for aircraft. The airline that juggles the cost and price pressures best with the available resources will give the best return to its shareholders.
Pilots are just another resource. A resource that has its own market, which these days is global. A pilot suitably qualified could work for a small island hopper, a mainline, or go play in the great big sandpit. In fact. of all the resources that have to be juggled, the pilot is probably one of the most flexible. A terminal in Dubbo can't be moved to become a terminal in Dallas, Devonport or Dubai, at least, not economically, whereas the appropriately-qualified pilot can redeploy her/himself to those places at very little notice and very little expense.
If I ran an airline, I'd be careful to maintain my most valuable, and easily lost, resources, if I understood that they were critical to my strategic capability of providing a service to my customers.
Not properly understanding the criticality of key resources, or treating any of those key resources with disdain, will surely result in the business going downhill, and not very slowly.
______
VH-CU
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....Just to show that you have no idea what your talking about and that your logic is so deeply flawed that you fail to impress ......look at your own words.
Cheaper Aircraft...........WRONG....Show us which aircraft are cheaper!
Cheaper Engines...........WRONG....Show us which new engines are cheaper!
Cheaper Management....WRONG and in fact the complete opposite.
Cheaper Maintenance.....WRONG but only because of short sighted management and their bonus driven mentality.
Cheaper Pilots...............WRONG.....because once again management do not want anyone else to be paid for what they do...unless of course your job is in management.
The fundamental reason for the decline in T&Cs, of course, is that everything in aviation has had to become steadily cheaper to facilitate the ever cheaper air travel for the people of the world - cheaper aircraft, engines, maintenance, management - and cheaper pilots.
Cheaper Engines...........WRONG....Show us which new engines are cheaper!
Cheaper Management....WRONG and in fact the complete opposite.
Cheaper Maintenance.....WRONG but only because of short sighted management and their bonus driven mentality.
Cheaper Pilots...............WRONG.....because once again management do not want anyone else to be paid for what they do...unless of course your job is in management.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: E116
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft, Thats not a Baron endorsement on a model remote control aircraft is it?? If it Isn't I think you missed your calling!
Hugh,
Air NZ brass regularly spend time on the front line. At least twice a month from memory. Look how Air NZ is on the up and up!
Hugh,
Air NZ brass regularly spend time on the front line. At least twice a month from memory. Look how Air NZ is on the up and up!
aircraft............
You've observed that 'a significant number' of pilots treat the companies that they work for with disdain, that is, the companies are:
How do you know it's a 'significant' number? 
In any case, if some pilots are treating the companies that they work for with disdain, why do you think that is? It's pretty simple really, aircraft.............sh1tty T&Cs lead to sh1tty attitudes.
I'd suggest that you re-read Torres' comment 'Improved terms, conditions and remuneration is a part of the solution.' (post #67), Torres' comments about corporate performance (post #71), Hugh Jarse's comments on thinking outside the square (post #68), and VH-Cheer Up's comment (post #74):
Hello...............anyone at home aircraft? Perhaps those comments may lead you to understand a bit better why some pilots are p1ssed off. 
Then again, they probably won't, resulting in your continued perception that you're the only one that's right, and that everyone else is wrong!
You've observed that 'a significant number' of pilots treat the companies that they work for with disdain, that is, the companies are:
to be used and abused then dropped like a hot potato when something better comes along.
In any case, if some pilots are treating the companies that they work for with disdain, why do you think that is? It's pretty simple really, aircraft.............sh1tty T&Cs lead to sh1tty attitudes.
I'd suggest that you re-read Torres' comment 'Improved terms, conditions and remuneration is a part of the solution.' (post #67), Torres' comments about corporate performance (post #71), Hugh Jarse's comments on thinking outside the square (post #68), and VH-Cheer Up's comment (post #74):
'If I ran an airline, I'd be careful to maintain my most valuable, and easily lost, resources, if I understood that they were critical to my strategic capability of providing a service to my customers.'
Then again, they probably won't, resulting in your continued perception that you're the only one that's right, and that everyone else is wrong!
Last edited by SIUYA; 18th Nov 2007 at 04:47.
Just a quick note on Icarus53's idiot theory...
An engineer on this forum once said that every time they designed something to be idiot-proof, someone else came up with a better idiot.
An engineer on this forum once said that every time they designed something to be idiot-proof, someone else came up with a better idiot.
It was said to me by a couple of friends who ar HR professionals who have been reading this thread that some pilots need a reality check. A $6.00 pilot retention surcharge, what about the engineers, ops people, marketing people, accountants....or are pilots the only ones who deserve extra. Just playing devils advocate.
So everyone has been quick to disparage aircrafts arguement and even his liniage, but no one has actually come up with what should be done. Lets see some suggestions, if you guys can.....for such aeas as.
Salary for FO, Capt
Duties
Rosters
Check and Training
Sure, some wally is going to suggest a new FO should work 3 days a week and start on 150K but lets keep it realistic.
Some ideas passed to me by current and ex REX drivers.
Hats - get rid of them. Their only use is a place to stash your roster.
Dedicated flight planning and load contol staff at major ports. The FO shuld be FOing, no standing at the bottom of the steps saying thank you for flying Rex at boarding. Flight dispatch should be doing the trim, not FOs
Give the crews a bus to and from the hangar to the ramp at Syd, crew hitching a lift on the toilet cart or catering truck is not a good image.
50K plus allowances for a year 1 FO, maybe 85K for year 1 capt.
Rethink flight ops proceedures, the SAAB was designed to have NO recal items, yet the REX FCOM is a voluminous document that make the space shuttle seem simple by comparison.
Fire the checkies whos sole aim in life is to fail guys on sim checks, talk to anyone who has been through it, they know what I am talking about.
For the record, I do agree that rex management are making a complete hash of the situation and are indeed risking the future of what could be a very sucesssful operation.
While i dont agree with Airrcaft 100%, he does make some sense. At least there is one person who doesnt think the world revolves around pilots...and yes, I am a pilot.(turbine driver and all).
Rather then just be part of the äint it awful" crowd, come up with suggestion to improve the work environment. There has to be some common sense, the revenue that a company makes is all it has to carve up in remuneration, its just like a pie, you cant serve 8 pieces if you only have enough to make 7. The trick is to make a bigger pie. BUT, if there is a bigger pie, ALL concerned deserve a bigger piece, not just one select group.
Gets hard hat and waits for the incomming fire.
So everyone has been quick to disparage aircrafts arguement and even his liniage, but no one has actually come up with what should be done. Lets see some suggestions, if you guys can.....for such aeas as.
Salary for FO, Capt
Duties
Rosters
Check and Training
Sure, some wally is going to suggest a new FO should work 3 days a week and start on 150K but lets keep it realistic.
Some ideas passed to me by current and ex REX drivers.
Hats - get rid of them. Their only use is a place to stash your roster.
Dedicated flight planning and load contol staff at major ports. The FO shuld be FOing, no standing at the bottom of the steps saying thank you for flying Rex at boarding. Flight dispatch should be doing the trim, not FOs
Give the crews a bus to and from the hangar to the ramp at Syd, crew hitching a lift on the toilet cart or catering truck is not a good image.
50K plus allowances for a year 1 FO, maybe 85K for year 1 capt.
Rethink flight ops proceedures, the SAAB was designed to have NO recal items, yet the REX FCOM is a voluminous document that make the space shuttle seem simple by comparison.
Fire the checkies whos sole aim in life is to fail guys on sim checks, talk to anyone who has been through it, they know what I am talking about.
For the record, I do agree that rex management are making a complete hash of the situation and are indeed risking the future of what could be a very sucesssful operation.
While i dont agree with Airrcaft 100%, he does make some sense. At least there is one person who doesnt think the world revolves around pilots...and yes, I am a pilot.(turbine driver and all).
Rather then just be part of the äint it awful" crowd, come up with suggestion to improve the work environment. There has to be some common sense, the revenue that a company makes is all it has to carve up in remuneration, its just like a pie, you cant serve 8 pieces if you only have enough to make 7. The trick is to make a bigger pie. BUT, if there is a bigger pie, ALL concerned deserve a bigger piece, not just one select group.
Gets hard hat and waits for the incomming fire.
Last edited by Guptar; 18th Nov 2007 at 15:30.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres,
Must disagree with your statement here. In economics, inflation refers to an expansion of the money supply, more dollars chasing the same number of goods, which will then lead to price and wage inflation. So whilst you're correct in saying that the government did not raise interest rates, it's the government's policies of printing more money which leads to reason for rates being raised, as it's effectively the only tool it has available to fight inflation (referring here to price and wage inflation).
When I left Oz in '90, the apartment I sold then is worth about 3 times that now. My salary at the time in Airlines was about 2/3 about what it is now, that is to say, pilots these days are earning about 50% more for the same job. Other price increases in Oz reflect the increase in the property I mentioned.
So if you do the math, a pilot today is only earning about 50% what he was back in 1990, and even worse after tax. So, to say that inflation is caused by wage demands is misleading and disingenuous. The wage demands are coming about because of the reduced spending of fewer dollars earned by employees. Airlines are getting pilots much cheaper than previously and yet still claim they can't manage.
When are pilots and employees in general going to stop putting up with rubbish?
Whilst some erroneously blame government for recent interest rate increases, the reason is inflation, fueled in part by significant increases
When I left Oz in '90, the apartment I sold then is worth about 3 times that now. My salary at the time in Airlines was about 2/3 about what it is now, that is to say, pilots these days are earning about 50% more for the same job. Other price increases in Oz reflect the increase in the property I mentioned.
So if you do the math, a pilot today is only earning about 50% what he was back in 1990, and even worse after tax. So, to say that inflation is caused by wage demands is misleading and disingenuous. The wage demands are coming about because of the reduced spending of fewer dollars earned by employees. Airlines are getting pilots much cheaper than previously and yet still claim they can't manage.
When are pilots and employees in general going to stop putting up with rubbish?