1,750 jobs to go at Qantas
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cammen,
the divisors .....
744 has operated at Max or close to max for the last 20 years. 767 has done likewise on and off. Yes, Airbus has been artificially at 160 for some time.
NEXT bid period is the FIRST time that all fleets have been 160 since oooooh about 1989?
my original statement stands ....
N
the divisors .....
744 has operated at Max or close to max for the last 20 years. 767 has done likewise on and off. Yes, Airbus has been artificially at 160 for some time.
NEXT bid period is the FIRST time that all fleets have been 160 since oooooh about 1989?
my original statement stands ....
N
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cammen,
the divisors .....
744 has operated at Max or close to max for the last 20 years. 767 has done likewise on and off. Yes, Airbus has been artificially at 160 for some time.
NEXT bid period is the FIRST time that all fleets have been 160 since oooooh about 1989?
my original statement stands ....
N
the divisors .....
744 has operated at Max or close to max for the last 20 years. 767 has done likewise on and off. Yes, Airbus has been artificially at 160 for some time.
NEXT bid period is the FIRST time that all fleets have been 160 since oooooh about 1989?
my original statement stands ....
N
I'm not being condescending, I have been an observer on this forum for some time and don't underestimate the value of opinion on here. It just doesn't add up to me.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 63
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oppss,,
it come sooner the expected hehe..
Air France-KLM to cut 3,000 jobs
BBC NEWS | Business | Air France-KLM to cut 3,000 jobs
it come sooner the expected hehe..
Air France-KLM to cut 3,000 jobs
BBC NEWS | Business | Air France-KLM to cut 3,000 jobs
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cammen,
What I am saying is that a lot of the reduction in flying in QF has been achieved in reducing the divisors to minimum. At the moment, they are not .. in the future they are, and will stay that way probably for the next year or two.
QF is desperate not to have to create redundancies, because they know they have to ask for voluntary redundancies first. So expect assignment of leave and other things, but I very much doubt that people will be retrenched. There are options in the EBA rollover that make things easier for QF as well (although there are a few things they will wince at), but it is all manageable, and I cannot see people losing their jobs.
That is all ....
N
PS ... and despite the doom merchants above, I happen to think that our current chief pilot WILL be doing all he can to prevent the said redundancies.....
Knowing him, I think he would regard it as a personal failure if such measures became necessary.
What I am saying is that a lot of the reduction in flying in QF has been achieved in reducing the divisors to minimum. At the moment, they are not .. in the future they are, and will stay that way probably for the next year or two.
QF is desperate not to have to create redundancies, because they know they have to ask for voluntary redundancies first. So expect assignment of leave and other things, but I very much doubt that people will be retrenched. There are options in the EBA rollover that make things easier for QF as well (although there are a few things they will wince at), but it is all manageable, and I cannot see people losing their jobs.
That is all ....
N
PS ... and despite the doom merchants above, I happen to think that our current chief pilot WILL be doing all he can to prevent the said redundancies.....
Knowing him, I think he would regard it as a personal failure if such measures became necessary.
Last edited by noip; 15th Apr 2009 at 13:03.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Have No Friggen Idea
I will start by stating that I am NOT a Qantas employee nor have I ever been one, but am indeed a shareholder, albeit an extremely minor one.
I have never read such utter crap in all my life, it is understandable by this garbage why Qantas is in fact under pressure. Its frontline employees have no idea how to run a business and post personal attacks to, in some weird way make themselves feel better, rather than band together in the true time of need for the betterment of the organisation than themselves, but still have the nerve to accuse the CEO of being selfish. MMMM double standards.
It is understandable that people are under pressure, what with mortgages etc, but unless you have lived a day in the life of a senior exec of a large organisation, keep your personal opinions about the person to yourselves, 'dont hate the player, hate the game'.
Let me tell you from experience in a senior exec role that it is not as rosey as you make it out, the pressure of losing your job is not a cyclical thing, but a daily thing. Trust me on that one.
Secondly, for one second think of the Qantas staff who are "last in" rather than continue to push the EBA conditions of last in first out and continue to rub peoples faces in the mud whilst they are already down. Any person who was part of that type of negotiation is indeed an evil person. I personally do not agree with EBAs as they reward the lazy and inept and keep down the true talent by implementing blatent discrimination in the way of seniority. I have personally challenged such a seniority setting in the IR commission with a company I worked for 15 years back and won.
From memory the engineering dispute last year lasted a little over 4 months, my company switched to Virgin Blue, because we knew at least we will get to our destination on time, even though the Qantas service is superior. We are today still with Virgin and so are other companies that we do business with, who also switched, so the $150m cost of the dispute, I think is not a static figure and will grow and the true cost is far greater and perhaps unmeasurable.
Im glad A Joyce has taken the reigns of Qantas as I am astounded to learn from this forum that a hostie earns $85k, are you kidding me, what the hell has Dixon allowed to foster. For what do they earn $85k, pouring a couple of cups of coffee, and throwing a couple of cookies down the isle.
Any way im sure I will cop a barrage of abuse from you overpaid, undereducated hosties out there. Give it your best shot, Ive read the crap you post and look forward to the entertainment.
Observer
I have never read such utter crap in all my life, it is understandable by this garbage why Qantas is in fact under pressure. Its frontline employees have no idea how to run a business and post personal attacks to, in some weird way make themselves feel better, rather than band together in the true time of need for the betterment of the organisation than themselves, but still have the nerve to accuse the CEO of being selfish. MMMM double standards.
It is understandable that people are under pressure, what with mortgages etc, but unless you have lived a day in the life of a senior exec of a large organisation, keep your personal opinions about the person to yourselves, 'dont hate the player, hate the game'.
Let me tell you from experience in a senior exec role that it is not as rosey as you make it out, the pressure of losing your job is not a cyclical thing, but a daily thing. Trust me on that one.
Secondly, for one second think of the Qantas staff who are "last in" rather than continue to push the EBA conditions of last in first out and continue to rub peoples faces in the mud whilst they are already down. Any person who was part of that type of negotiation is indeed an evil person. I personally do not agree with EBAs as they reward the lazy and inept and keep down the true talent by implementing blatent discrimination in the way of seniority. I have personally challenged such a seniority setting in the IR commission with a company I worked for 15 years back and won.
From memory the engineering dispute last year lasted a little over 4 months, my company switched to Virgin Blue, because we knew at least we will get to our destination on time, even though the Qantas service is superior. We are today still with Virgin and so are other companies that we do business with, who also switched, so the $150m cost of the dispute, I think is not a static figure and will grow and the true cost is far greater and perhaps unmeasurable.
Im glad A Joyce has taken the reigns of Qantas as I am astounded to learn from this forum that a hostie earns $85k, are you kidding me, what the hell has Dixon allowed to foster. For what do they earn $85k, pouring a couple of cups of coffee, and throwing a couple of cookies down the isle.
Any way im sure I will cop a barrage of abuse from you overpaid, undereducated hosties out there. Give it your best shot, Ive read the crap you post and look forward to the entertainment.
Observer
Observer,
Spot on! And you will not be disappointed. Do you possess a hard hat and a bullet proof vest.
It is soooooooooo easy to see the battle that AJ and his team are facing.
Spot on! And you will not be disappointed. Do you possess a hard hat and a bullet proof vest.
It is soooooooooo easy to see the battle that AJ and his team are facing.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will start by stating that I am NOT a Qantas employee nor have I ever been one, but am indeed a shareholder, albeit an extremely minor one...
From memory the engineering dispute last year lasted a little over 4 months, my company switched to Virgin Blue, because we knew at least we will get to our destination on time, even though the Qantas service is superior. We are today still with Virgin and so are other companies that we do business with, who also switched, so the $150m cost of the dispute, I think is not a static figure and will grow and the true cost is far greater and perhaps unmeasurable.
From memory the engineering dispute last year lasted a little over 4 months, my company switched to Virgin Blue, because we knew at least we will get to our destination on time, even though the Qantas service is superior. We are today still with Virgin and so are other companies that we do business with, who also switched, so the $150m cost of the dispute, I think is not a static figure and will grow and the true cost is far greater and perhaps unmeasurable.
Any way im sure I will cop a barrage of abuse from you overpaid, undereducated hosties out there. Give it your best shot, Ive read the crap you post and look forward to the entertainment.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Observer,
Excellent post. Always refreshing to hear the perspective from somebody other than the bitter and twisted QF pilots.
Dixon was, in my opinion, a brilliant CEO and I'm sure time will come to show that. But, to bring about any kind of reductions to employee's terms and conditions (especially the spoon fed) is incredibly, incredibly difficult, but you can rest assured that he would have been working on it.
Excellent post. Always refreshing to hear the perspective from somebody other than the bitter and twisted QF pilots.
... what the hell has Dixon allowed to foster...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Warehouse of Excellence
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Observer....
...gotta hand it to you babe....you are the one who provides me the entertainment and not vice versa...I'd rather be "overpaid and under-educated" ANY DAY...than underpaid and over-educated....
Don't hate it babe.....just enjoy the pay disparity between you and I !!!!!!
Don't hate it babe.....just enjoy the pay disparity between you and I !!!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not make 85k. In fact, I could have a better quality of work environment running a front office somewhere. BUT- I love my job, I (mostly) love my passengers and I enjoy coming to work each day, despite a lot of the BS that goes on in the QF workplace.
Now 99% of the flight attendants at QF do their best to help the company out. A lot of us work on days off (and before you say for the extra money, no we do not get extra for working days off- that is something that was never in our agreement) Many of us personally suggest improvements or ways to save money which are either not listened to, or shrugged off then implemented months down the track once it becomes clear that the orginal way of doing things was flawed.
All I can say is, how long can one go putting the company first before things fall apart? It's a well known fact that employees will give a lot for a company that looks after them (Im not just talking $$$ here, I'm talking lifestyle, time off, promotion opportunities etc) and obviously something is/was very wrong at QF. I'd hate to see anyone lose their jobs but on the other hand, it's true that some people should have left long ago as they do not like what they do and just bring the rest of us down.
I too was wondering about the o/s base- I can understand having London, due distance, but the BKK base? Get rid of the slave labour and allow those poor people to have a real career! If you want to save Australian jobs, stop farming them off o/s. And I totally agree, if management had been fair with regard to the engineers, there would have been no need for the overtime bans. Anyone mentioning the latest industrial action- if you check that was ground services (baggage, catering etc) NOT engineers. Sure it was a pain in the ass with all the delays, but I am behind the boys fully for what they did. They do bloody good work under sometimes crappy conditions and a lot of pressure, and all they wanted was a reasonable pay increase (which they were entitled to years before). The state QF is in now began long before the engineer's dispute.
It will be an interesting few weeks, that's for sure. Let's hope QF use it to their advantage and come out better for it, rather than making things worse.
Now 99% of the flight attendants at QF do their best to help the company out. A lot of us work on days off (and before you say for the extra money, no we do not get extra for working days off- that is something that was never in our agreement) Many of us personally suggest improvements or ways to save money which are either not listened to, or shrugged off then implemented months down the track once it becomes clear that the orginal way of doing things was flawed.
All I can say is, how long can one go putting the company first before things fall apart? It's a well known fact that employees will give a lot for a company that looks after them (Im not just talking $$$ here, I'm talking lifestyle, time off, promotion opportunities etc) and obviously something is/was very wrong at QF. I'd hate to see anyone lose their jobs but on the other hand, it's true that some people should have left long ago as they do not like what they do and just bring the rest of us down.
I too was wondering about the o/s base- I can understand having London, due distance, but the BKK base? Get rid of the slave labour and allow those poor people to have a real career! If you want to save Australian jobs, stop farming them off o/s. And I totally agree, if management had been fair with regard to the engineers, there would have been no need for the overtime bans. Anyone mentioning the latest industrial action- if you check that was ground services (baggage, catering etc) NOT engineers. Sure it was a pain in the ass with all the delays, but I am behind the boys fully for what they did. They do bloody good work under sometimes crappy conditions and a lot of pressure, and all they wanted was a reasonable pay increase (which they were entitled to years before). The state QF is in now began long before the engineer's dispute.
It will be an interesting few weeks, that's for sure. Let's hope QF use it to their advantage and come out better for it, rather than making things worse.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peg 747
Yes QD are roped in to the last on first off provision even though they have their own EBA as evidenced by this notice from the FAAA.
EBA7 Variation
On 25 September 2008, your Association finalised an agreement with the company on a proposed variation to EBA7.
The proposed agreement will be mailed to all crew this week. The mail out from the company will include an overview of the agreement and an explanation on the voting process. The major features of the agreement are listed below.
Improved Conditions of Employment
· A 3 year term with a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2011
· Salaries and relevant allowances increased by 3% per year being 1 July x 2008, 1 July 2009, 1 July 2010
· Three lump sum payments of $500 each year for three years
· Transfers into long-haul to continue under PART 1 of their agreement
· Redundancy provisions strictly in accordance with the application of seniority. In particular, any compulsory redundancies to be in reverse order of seniority which would include any employee of a third party entity
· Part-time flight attendants to have certainty on minimum and maximum period required when electing for part-time work
· Preparation of rosters (blocks) will be enhanced to ensure absolute priority is given to short-haul crew in the allocation of work. This will include the capacity to artificially increase the short haul establishment to ensure roster quality and control demand days
· Superannuation choice of fund
· Short-haul flight attendants to have exclusive access to CSM positions for an agreed period of time
· Agreement to review or discuss the application of a number of other matters. A separate newsletter of these particular issues will issued shortly.
Yes QD are roped in to the last on first off provision even though they have their own EBA as evidenced by this notice from the FAAA.
EBA7 Variation
On 25 September 2008, your Association finalised an agreement with the company on a proposed variation to EBA7.
The proposed agreement will be mailed to all crew this week. The mail out from the company will include an overview of the agreement and an explanation on the voting process. The major features of the agreement are listed below.
Improved Conditions of Employment
· A 3 year term with a nominal expiry date of 30 June 2011
· Salaries and relevant allowances increased by 3% per year being 1 July x 2008, 1 July 2009, 1 July 2010
· Three lump sum payments of $500 each year for three years
· Transfers into long-haul to continue under PART 1 of their agreement
· Redundancy provisions strictly in accordance with the application of seniority. In particular, any compulsory redundancies to be in reverse order of seniority which would include any employee of a third party entity
· Part-time flight attendants to have certainty on minimum and maximum period required when electing for part-time work
· Preparation of rosters (blocks) will be enhanced to ensure absolute priority is given to short-haul crew in the allocation of work. This will include the capacity to artificially increase the short haul establishment to ensure roster quality and control demand days
· Superannuation choice of fund
· Short-haul flight attendants to have exclusive access to CSM positions for an agreed period of time
· Agreement to review or discuss the application of a number of other matters. A separate newsletter of these particular issues will issued shortly.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: FNQ
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF Observer
Excellent post. Good to see it from another perspective. We all don't wish to see people lose their jobs in any industry, so let's hope AJ looks at all the alternatives.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
Thread drift...
The most fantastic trips I have ever had have been with the support of Cabin Crew, and at least one of them the support of CC has been utterly critical.
For Cabin Crew ... thankyou....
N
Thread drift...
The most fantastic trips I have ever had have been with the support of Cabin Crew, and at least one of them the support of CC has been utterly critical.
For Cabin Crew ... thankyou....
N
Dear QF Observer
Wow, QF Observer weighs into the discussion with a wild right hook and WHAM! What a post! There are, however, a couple of points I've got to raise with you.
You claim frontline employees have no idea how to run a business. I agree that for the vast majority this is true but I would also suspect that most Qantas employees would have some pretty good ideas regarding how not to run a business.
Could you clarify the point you are trying to make regarding the engineering dispute of last year? Yes, the long term ramifications of the dispute are extensive and immeasureable something both sides were undoubtably well aware of during discussions. This makes Qantas management look even more foolish. Why hold out, dig their heels in and contribute to the extensive damage the dispute caused instead of coughing up what, even at the time, is a small amount in comparison to the real financial cost?
Last year Qantas was fined AU$69.3M for its role in price fixing in the air freight industry. It also put aside another AU$64M for further potential fines. Far from exemplary management.
You mention your being astounded upon learning that some cabin crew earn over AU$85k for the "superior" Qantas service which involved "pouring a couple of cups of coffee, and throwing a couple of cookies down the isle". How's life with Virgin? They must be throwing the coffee down the isle and pouring cups of cookie crumbs for you these days, based on your accounts.
Yeah 85k is a staggering amount of money and the reality is that the crew earning that sort of money are on the way out. QCD, QCCA, foreign-based crew and so on are the way of the future and I'm sure you'll find their remuneration far more palatable, and perhaps even their service. Remember, while these people are primarily seen in a service role they spend more time training for when the proverbial hits the fan. Just as your pilots are actively monitoring, assessing and analysing both what's going on and what could go wrong, for much of the time, so are your cabin crew! That's been proven during a number of incidents over the past few years where the cabin crew's performance and conduct has been widely acclaimed.
Is 85k too much? Probably, but it's a hangover from the "good old days" which are long gone. The experience these people have and are able to pass on to the new crew, however, is invaluable. We want crew who are enthusiastic, professional and undistracted by monetary struggles. Remember that next time you have a hole blown in the side of your aeroplane over the South China Sea.
You also blame EBAs for keeping down the "true talent" and rewarding the "lazy and inept". It surprises me that someone with your background could make such a statement. Sure in a time of contraction there are going to be people who keep their jobs while others better suited will lose theirs. Don't blame the award! It is the role of the company and its managers (and in light of this thread that I include fleet managers, the training departments, and both check and line captains) to ensure that the lazy and inept don't fester. Surely every department should have adequate systems in place to ensure the right people are getting the right jobs and the dead-wood is removed. It should never come to forced redundancies in difficult times to flush out the bad eggs. First in, last off. I feel truly awful for the people it affects but it's fair.
Finally, I don't think anyone on this forum considers the role of a senior executive to be easy. You complain of the pressure of losing your job as a daily concern. Good. I'm sure it is and I'm glad. These people hold the livelyhoods of hundreds, if not thousands, of people in their hands and I WANT them to feel pressure because of that. I WANT every decision they make to put their career in the balance because I WANT them to be assured beyond all compare that they've considered all of their options and made the right decision. Do I think that'd be stressful? Without a doubt. But guess what, you are all compensated accordingly. You chose to be there, you make decisions that can have a monumental impact on peoples' lives and when people to see you making decisions that cost them their homes, their income and/or their jobs, only to see you walking off with huge bonuses, they are not going to like you. Rest assured though, it's nothing personal and you got paid well to do it. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
QFO, I don't work for Qantas either. I did work for Ansett. I have no shares in QF. I fly light aircraft and I've also worked in a variety of companies in senior management positions, including the CEO's chair, and I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about the staff and management of Qantas.
You are perfectly correct about the daily challenge to your existence as a senior manager. Two, perhaps Three, bad judgements will see you out the door and a takeover most probably will. That is why you receive a large salary and perhaps a bonus and a golden parachute as well. But that situation only applies in a well managed organisation with a Board operating under a good system of corporate governance.
Judging by the quality of management decisions at Qantas, it is arguable that the management of Qantas has been dysfunctional for some Eight or so years, or to put it another way, the inmates are running the asylum. Bad judgements have been rewarded, not punished.
Then there is the matter of the management principle I was taught at business school and still subscribe to: the job of management is to ensure that the people they manage can succeed at what they must do. This is often regarded as the 'inverted pyramid" school of thinking. Geoff Dixon specifically rejected this notion saying that "The Board and senior management" delivered QF's successes in the past. This is demonstrably not true since "the Board and senior management" cannot fly or maintain the aircraft.
But wait, there's more...
If you peruse the QF threads here on Pprune, you will discover very quickly that 99% of employee criticism of the company is to do with the barriers management have instituted that stop employees from succeeding at what they are supposed to do; deliver first class cabin service, provide an operational aircraft and deliver you in comfort and tranquility to your appointed destination at the appointed time.
As for your comments about salaries, etc., you are simply ill informed, and have no idea about the hoops you have to jump through to obtain these salaries.
and a P.S. Watch very closely how QF handle the redundancy issue because the process they adopt is going to be very telling about the quality and culture of its management. Will it be slow and clean, or quick and dirty? Both methods are acceptable depending on circumstances.
The bad alternative - slow and dirty, maximises the pain and uncertainty that surrounds redundancy, saps employee morale and destroys value, but that is the way the narcissistic management of QF have proceeded in the last Eight years.
"Legacy Airline" my @rse!
You are perfectly correct about the daily challenge to your existence as a senior manager. Two, perhaps Three, bad judgements will see you out the door and a takeover most probably will. That is why you receive a large salary and perhaps a bonus and a golden parachute as well. But that situation only applies in a well managed organisation with a Board operating under a good system of corporate governance.
Judging by the quality of management decisions at Qantas, it is arguable that the management of Qantas has been dysfunctional for some Eight or so years, or to put it another way, the inmates are running the asylum. Bad judgements have been rewarded, not punished.
Then there is the matter of the management principle I was taught at business school and still subscribe to: the job of management is to ensure that the people they manage can succeed at what they must do. This is often regarded as the 'inverted pyramid" school of thinking. Geoff Dixon specifically rejected this notion saying that "The Board and senior management" delivered QF's successes in the past. This is demonstrably not true since "the Board and senior management" cannot fly or maintain the aircraft.
But wait, there's more...
If you peruse the QF threads here on Pprune, you will discover very quickly that 99% of employee criticism of the company is to do with the barriers management have instituted that stop employees from succeeding at what they are supposed to do; deliver first class cabin service, provide an operational aircraft and deliver you in comfort and tranquility to your appointed destination at the appointed time.
As for your comments about salaries, etc., you are simply ill informed, and have no idea about the hoops you have to jump through to obtain these salaries.
and a P.S. Watch very closely how QF handle the redundancy issue because the process they adopt is going to be very telling about the quality and culture of its management. Will it be slow and clean, or quick and dirty? Both methods are acceptable depending on circumstances.
The bad alternative - slow and dirty, maximises the pain and uncertainty that surrounds redundancy, saps employee morale and destroys value, but that is the way the narcissistic management of QF have proceeded in the last Eight years.
"Legacy Airline" my @rse!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Glade
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish :An Outstanding Post
It is unbelievable that a CEO(a Company Employee) should benefit from the sale of the business he manages.
Had the APA bid been successful Dixon would have been $60million richer and this thread would be irrelevant simply because Qantas would not exist.
Qantas is not a good business nor a good airline and that is down to Dixon's poor management.
Jackson was also complicit in this.The Chairman should keep a close eye on the CEO.Jackson did not.Dixon was in effect both CEO and Chairman.Jackson was surplus to requirements and appropriately resigned.
Clifford is the style of Chairman Qantas required to keep Dixon accountable.
Dixon crippled Qantas.
For an airline to maintain its status as a premium carrier requires a level of Capital expenditure in both staff and equipment.Under Dixon the number of frontline staff declined,management numbers grew and the fleet aged.Service declined and ontime departures suffered as older aircraft required more and more maintenance.
Dixon cobbled together a mish mash of compliant individuals from Air NZ,TAA and Ansett.Three different cultures with no skill set to run an international airline.
The airline exists because the long suffering employees began ignoring management directives wherever they could.Passive resistance if you will.
The Qantas of today is the result of its management believing in its own infallibility.
Qantas now needs a leader to pull it back from the brink.Nothing so far suggests that it has one.
Meanwhile passengers,shareholders and employees continue to endure the agony
Had the APA bid been successful Dixon would have been $60million richer and this thread would be irrelevant simply because Qantas would not exist.
Qantas is not a good business nor a good airline and that is down to Dixon's poor management.
Jackson was also complicit in this.The Chairman should keep a close eye on the CEO.Jackson did not.Dixon was in effect both CEO and Chairman.Jackson was surplus to requirements and appropriately resigned.
Clifford is the style of Chairman Qantas required to keep Dixon accountable.
Dixon crippled Qantas.
For an airline to maintain its status as a premium carrier requires a level of Capital expenditure in both staff and equipment.Under Dixon the number of frontline staff declined,management numbers grew and the fleet aged.Service declined and ontime departures suffered as older aircraft required more and more maintenance.
Dixon cobbled together a mish mash of compliant individuals from Air NZ,TAA and Ansett.Three different cultures with no skill set to run an international airline.
The airline exists because the long suffering employees began ignoring management directives wherever they could.Passive resistance if you will.
The Qantas of today is the result of its management believing in its own infallibility.
Qantas now needs a leader to pull it back from the brink.Nothing so far suggests that it has one.
Meanwhile passengers,shareholders and employees continue to endure the agony
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: on my boat
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q: How do you make a million dollars out of an Aviation business?
A: Start with 5 Million....
Hard enough to remain profitable dealing in markets that are outside of the aviation business (especially at the moment). Harder still to do this within the scope of an aviation framework faced with rising costs and dwindling inflows.
Would be a sad day to see the national carrier be disbanded, if that were to ever happen. The red rat is a global icon that deserves its place amongst world carriers.
Domestic business too tight. Not enough routes and pax numbers to influence price action. Bail out of domestic, up resource Jetstar and take on the international routes with new vigour and rebranding.
Hang in there "Q"...
A: Start with 5 Million....
Hard enough to remain profitable dealing in markets that are outside of the aviation business (especially at the moment). Harder still to do this within the scope of an aviation framework faced with rising costs and dwindling inflows.
Would be a sad day to see the national carrier be disbanded, if that were to ever happen. The red rat is a global icon that deserves its place amongst world carriers.
Domestic business too tight. Not enough routes and pax numbers to influence price action. Bail out of domestic, up resource Jetstar and take on the international routes with new vigour and rebranding.
Hang in there "Q"...