Merged: Qantas:The Trashing Of A Brand
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Melbourne
Age: 41
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a certain Mr T (CEO of Ansett) that popped a couple of mill $$$ into a New Zealand bank account 3 days before they closed the doors for the first time. (FACT not Rumour)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sodor
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dixons Passing
When dixon goes to that Big Hangar in the Sky I would like to know where he is buried so that I can ensure that the site is adequately watered every year on the anniversary of his passing
Heh Heh Heh.
The Water will be personally filtered.
Heh Heh Heh.
The Water will be personally filtered.
Ngineer:
Nope, they don't have to watch their backs once they have narcissists below them because they deliberately hire less competent people who know that anything less than complete and abject loyalty will result in instant punishment and dismissal. Those hired know that (since they are usually incompetent) their only protection from being "found out' is their boss - who doles out favours and big bonuses to those that please him the most. It's like a mediaeval court surrounding the King. Everyone says nice things to the king. Anyone who isn't loyal gets their head chopped off, and the guys that please the king the most get made into Dukes (or today, Group General Managers).
To put it another way, narcissists "play with people" the way you or I would play with a dog or a cat, and they have no compunction about setting one onto another just to watch the fight. They can also "calibrate" an individual pretty well, like we can work out which dog is dangerous to us - and the dangerous ones get "put down'.
The only way Qantas will get put right is when the cleaning out starts from the very top of the Board, and if the Chairman is a Narcissist (don't know if the current one is, Marg definitely was) then that is not going to happen. If you leave one narcissist in the system, they will systematically work their way up the ladder again, knifing competitors in the back as they rise.
Sunfish, your posts are interesting but one thing does not make sense. Why would a narcissist employ others like himself? If he did this, would'nt he be constantly watching his back for the knife weilding narcissists below him?
To put it another way, narcissists "play with people" the way you or I would play with a dog or a cat, and they have no compunction about setting one onto another just to watch the fight. They can also "calibrate" an individual pretty well, like we can work out which dog is dangerous to us - and the dangerous ones get "put down'.
The only way Qantas will get put right is when the cleaning out starts from the very top of the Board, and if the Chairman is a Narcissist (don't know if the current one is, Marg definitely was) then that is not going to happen. If you leave one narcissist in the system, they will systematically work their way up the ladder again, knifing competitors in the back as they rise.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Warm & Sunny
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....the "peter principle"
And an adjunct to the narciccist is the "peter principle" where those of like nature worm their way to the top of an organisation to "achieve" a position of incompetence!!!
Role on.......
Role on.......
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Hot'n'spicy
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word on CEO's
From the ABC........'nuff said
Sol Trujillo's payout when he leaves Telstra will be 93 million dollars and some of us will ask how he earned it. 93 million dollars would keep ten small theatre companies going for a thousand years on the interest alone. 93 million dollars would fund a month of the Iraq War.
It's a thousand times the annual wage of a New York fireman. It's three hundred times the annual wage of Kevin Rudd. In a bank earning seven percent interest, it would make him 17,835 dollars a day. 743 dollars an hour. 12 dollars a minute. A dollar every five seconds.
It's a lot of money. How did he earn it?
Well, he asked some of his undermanagers to sack thirty thousand Australian workers, disrupting a hundred thousand lives. He raised the cost of owning and using a phone by, oh, about 17 percent. And that's about it, really. 93 million dollars. With interest after fourteen months, it'll be a hundred million dollars.
What CEOs do for their money is something we never ask. The CEO of Sydney Airport makes sure planes land safely, the way they always have. The CEO of London Water makes sure clean water comes out of the tap, the way it always did. The CEO of Qantas makes sure its planes fly safely while sacking more and more of its tired staff.
CEOs sack people. That's pretty much all they do. They don't sack them face to face. That would be too much like hard work. They earn their seven or eight millions a year by asking other people to do the sacking.
And the average CEO has to sack a lot of people to make up for the seven or eight million dollars he's earning. With payouts, that adds up to, oh, 160 loyal employees for a start.
Their distress, relocation and search for another job, their children's interrupted schooling and loss of friends don't trouble him. They are things he doesn't need to hear. He's got his eight million dollars, and that's what matters. If he was offered any less – eight hundred dollars an hour, say, not nine hundred – he wouldn't take the job.
He's called a CEO because if he was called a boss he might sound harsh and sinister. Unions have bosses, corporations have CEOs. They're there to sack people, to improve the bottom line.
Many of them administrate what used to be pretty much government monopolies: British Rail, Sydney Airport, Qantas, ETSA, various ferries, buses, ambulances. These were 'privatised' because it was thought a corporation would run them 'more efficiently' (meaning they'd sack more people) because 'private enterprise' was more 'motivated' to do so.
But a CEO is not motivated at all. If he stuffs up he gets, oh, four, five million dollars to walk away. That's 280 thousand a year, or 355 thousand a year, in interest for the rest of their lives for failing. How can they be said to be motivated to succeed? A government minister, a public servant, is punished when things fail. A CEO is rewarded.
What are CEOs for? They sack telephonists and replace them with machines. They merge companies and sack a lot of duplicated employees. They move Mitsubishi out of South Australia to somewhere cheaper. They make a lot of people miserable and their shareholders richer; shareholders mostly born rich, like them. They don't gratify their customers, they put them in queues.
What are CEOs for? Without them, planes would still land at Mascot. Water would still flow through taps. Mobile phones would still get through to London in thirty seconds.
And a lot more people would be happy, working and settled, not scared every minute they'd soon have to rewrite their lives.
CEOs are actually a revisiting of the Divine Right of Kings. Nobody deserves that much money, that much power over lives. Nobody needs that much money. Sol's payout is a million times as much as a poverty-level African survives on in a year. What made him so kingly, so deserving? Did he ever repair a phone, climb up a telegraph pole?
Teachers are asked to show wage restraint, but not Sol. Nurses are told they ask for too much, but not Sol. Not till now.
Teachers save souls and nurses save lives, but not Sol. He just gets three dollars a second in his retirement for putting up your phone bills, and sacking the men that used to repair the lines, and wrecking your country town.
He's much more deserving than any nurse or teacher. A hundred thousand times more deserving.
Wouldn't you say?
Sol Trujillo's payout when he leaves Telstra will be 93 million dollars and some of us will ask how he earned it. 93 million dollars would keep ten small theatre companies going for a thousand years on the interest alone. 93 million dollars would fund a month of the Iraq War.
It's a thousand times the annual wage of a New York fireman. It's three hundred times the annual wage of Kevin Rudd. In a bank earning seven percent interest, it would make him 17,835 dollars a day. 743 dollars an hour. 12 dollars a minute. A dollar every five seconds.
It's a lot of money. How did he earn it?
Well, he asked some of his undermanagers to sack thirty thousand Australian workers, disrupting a hundred thousand lives. He raised the cost of owning and using a phone by, oh, about 17 percent. And that's about it, really. 93 million dollars. With interest after fourteen months, it'll be a hundred million dollars.
What CEOs do for their money is something we never ask. The CEO of Sydney Airport makes sure planes land safely, the way they always have. The CEO of London Water makes sure clean water comes out of the tap, the way it always did. The CEO of Qantas makes sure its planes fly safely while sacking more and more of its tired staff.
CEOs sack people. That's pretty much all they do. They don't sack them face to face. That would be too much like hard work. They earn their seven or eight millions a year by asking other people to do the sacking.
And the average CEO has to sack a lot of people to make up for the seven or eight million dollars he's earning. With payouts, that adds up to, oh, 160 loyal employees for a start.
Their distress, relocation and search for another job, their children's interrupted schooling and loss of friends don't trouble him. They are things he doesn't need to hear. He's got his eight million dollars, and that's what matters. If he was offered any less – eight hundred dollars an hour, say, not nine hundred – he wouldn't take the job.
He's called a CEO because if he was called a boss he might sound harsh and sinister. Unions have bosses, corporations have CEOs. They're there to sack people, to improve the bottom line.
Many of them administrate what used to be pretty much government monopolies: British Rail, Sydney Airport, Qantas, ETSA, various ferries, buses, ambulances. These were 'privatised' because it was thought a corporation would run them 'more efficiently' (meaning they'd sack more people) because 'private enterprise' was more 'motivated' to do so.
But a CEO is not motivated at all. If he stuffs up he gets, oh, four, five million dollars to walk away. That's 280 thousand a year, or 355 thousand a year, in interest for the rest of their lives for failing. How can they be said to be motivated to succeed? A government minister, a public servant, is punished when things fail. A CEO is rewarded.
What are CEOs for? They sack telephonists and replace them with machines. They merge companies and sack a lot of duplicated employees. They move Mitsubishi out of South Australia to somewhere cheaper. They make a lot of people miserable and their shareholders richer; shareholders mostly born rich, like them. They don't gratify their customers, they put them in queues.
What are CEOs for? Without them, planes would still land at Mascot. Water would still flow through taps. Mobile phones would still get through to London in thirty seconds.
And a lot more people would be happy, working and settled, not scared every minute they'd soon have to rewrite their lives.
CEOs are actually a revisiting of the Divine Right of Kings. Nobody deserves that much money, that much power over lives. Nobody needs that much money. Sol's payout is a million times as much as a poverty-level African survives on in a year. What made him so kingly, so deserving? Did he ever repair a phone, climb up a telegraph pole?
Teachers are asked to show wage restraint, but not Sol. Nurses are told they ask for too much, but not Sol. Not till now.
Teachers save souls and nurses save lives, but not Sol. He just gets three dollars a second in his retirement for putting up your phone bills, and sacking the men that used to repair the lines, and wrecking your country town.
He's much more deserving than any nurse or teacher. A hundred thousand times more deserving.
Wouldn't you say?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: united arab emirates
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just back from the US on a trip and noticed Quantas Tele add over there
" The worlds most experienced airline " what utter B@#$@^t !
If they are claiminmg to be the oldest they are far wrong. This title goes to KLM.
" The worlds most experienced airline " what utter B@#$@^t !
If they are claiminmg to be the oldest they are far wrong. This title goes to KLM.
fourgolds
Oh dear, that's a worry. The last airline to use that slogan was Pan Am. There came the day when they had another "experience" and one of their newspaper adverts posing the question "When was the last time something exciting happened in your street" was juxtaposed with the headline "Part falls off jet hits house".
BTW there's no U in Qantas. In 1999 I found out that there was no me in Qantas either.
Rgds
Just back from the US on a trip and noticed Quantas Tele add over there
" The worlds most experienced airline "
" The worlds most experienced airline "
BTW there's no U in Qantas. In 1999 I found out that there was no me in Qantas either.
Rgds
Nunc est bibendum
If they are claiminmg to be the oldest they are far wrong. This title goes to KLM.
Keg
While Air France and KLM are owned by the holding company Air France-KLM in France I think you will find that they are still separate airlines based in France and the Netherlands respectively with their own AOC’s.
Every time I see the Qantas add in Hong Kong and the add campaign on the wall at Central MTR station I want to puke. It has extrememly bad karma written all over it if you ask me.
While Air France and KLM are owned by the holding company Air France-KLM in France I think you will find that they are still separate airlines based in France and the Netherlands respectively with their own AOC’s.
Every time I see the Qantas add in Hong Kong and the add campaign on the wall at Central MTR station I want to puke. It has extrememly bad karma written all over it if you ask me.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow
Maybegunnadoo, did you write that or did someone with the ABC write it?
I only ask as I'd like to acknowledge the effort of the writer. That's a hell of a piece. Well done!
Keg, mate, do you really want to associate yourself with the presumptuous claim Qantas are making?
I only ask as I'd like to acknowledge the effort of the writer. That's a hell of a piece. Well done!
Keg, mate, do you really want to associate yourself with the presumptuous claim Qantas are making?
Nunc est bibendum
I'm on record as not liking the marketing strategy. I think it's a joke and it makes my stomach turn as much as yours 404.
The reality is that KLM no longer have the mantle of the oldest airline. Just as QF wouldn't have the mantle if we 'merged' with BA to form a new company but continued to operate as QF. Of course, that may not stop them from trying but it wouldn't be right.
To be honest, I'm not normally one to get into the nitty gritty of technicalities. It means that you're probably pulling something dodgy but using the letter of the law to get away with it. By the letter of the law, QF is probably correct. I agree that it's a bit dodgy and I reckon it's a bizarre line to take in advertising for an airline. It reeks of desperation and resting on laurels- something I know the crew don't do but it concerns me if the marketers and commercial types feel that is a wise way of marketing the airline.
The reality is that KLM no longer have the mantle of the oldest airline. Just as QF wouldn't have the mantle if we 'merged' with BA to form a new company but continued to operate as QF. Of course, that may not stop them from trying but it wouldn't be right.
To be honest, I'm not normally one to get into the nitty gritty of technicalities. It means that you're probably pulling something dodgy but using the letter of the law to get away with it. By the letter of the law, QF is probably correct. I agree that it's a bit dodgy and I reckon it's a bizarre line to take in advertising for an airline. It reeks of desperation and resting on laurels- something I know the crew don't do but it concerns me if the marketers and commercial types feel that is a wise way of marketing the airline.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: tassie
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst we are looking at CEO's, though not siding with them, movie stars, sport stars are making this much money and some much more and we don't seem to batter an eyelid, utterly disgraceful that anyone could take such large amounts of money when so many people cannot even afford food for a day.
Hi Muff Hunter.
At least with sportingstars and movie stars you get some entertainment for your money.
For example if you go to the cricket and your favourite batsman makes a ton youv'e porbabley had a good day out. i know i would have.
You go to the movies to see your favourite actor and you come out feeling youv'e been entertained and you think hey, that was good.
At least the sportsperson/actor has done something to earn thier money.
NOT SO CEO's
Fly safe and play hard.
Regards to all.
Hoss58.
At least with sportingstars and movie stars you get some entertainment for your money.
For example if you go to the cricket and your favourite batsman makes a ton youv'e porbabley had a good day out. i know i would have.
You go to the movies to see your favourite actor and you come out feeling youv'e been entertained and you think hey, that was good.
At least the sportsperson/actor has done something to earn thier money.
NOT SO CEO's
Fly safe and play hard.
Regards to all.
Hoss58.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The staff at Qantas have been "trashing" the Qantas brand for years.
In flight service at the pointy end has similar "hardware" as some Asian competitors but the "software" is in major need of overhaul. One only needs to read websites such as this to quickly learn that staff such as cabin crew and engineers wear their hatred and disruption to the business as a badge of honor. Ansetts demise was accelerated by similar industrial thuggery within some departments as union "leaders" happily pulled the temple down over thier heads. The same is unfolding at Qantas as strike breakers circle the pond.
Dixon is running a profitable airline that at one stage was the worlds most profitable under his stewardship. Running an airline is not a popularity contest, he doesnt care how slings and arrows are sent his wage but myopic wage earning pilots.
In flight service at the pointy end has similar "hardware" as some Asian competitors but the "software" is in major need of overhaul. One only needs to read websites such as this to quickly learn that staff such as cabin crew and engineers wear their hatred and disruption to the business as a badge of honor. Ansetts demise was accelerated by similar industrial thuggery within some departments as union "leaders" happily pulled the temple down over thier heads. The same is unfolding at Qantas as strike breakers circle the pond.
Dixon is running a profitable airline that at one stage was the worlds most profitable under his stewardship. Running an airline is not a popularity contest, he doesnt care how slings and arrows are sent his wage but myopic wage earning pilots.
