Qantas Shame
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Point
Good point. JQ is the way of the future when it comes to lean and profitable, but the catch quite simply is that QF pays its Managers (and everyone for that matter) much more than what its budget sibling pays !!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The worlds highest paid airline executive running the worlds 10th largest airline.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem with this. Passengers are free to choose if they wish to fly an airline with a 1 to 36 ratio or a 1:50 ratio. If an individual thinks this is unacceptable they are free to choose not to fly with QF.
As for the drift into Geoff Dixon's payout.
As true today as the day he said it. If you are an employee and don't own the company you have no business questioning the pay of other employees. If you are a shareholder and don't like this then you have a mechanism in place already to take up this issue.
That's exactly right. You are free to choose. That is how economic freedom works. 
You are free to choose to work elsewhere. If you are still working for QANTAS whilst you think that someone who the owners paid to run it is ruining it then it begs the question why you didn't move on. Assuming you work for QANTAS then your actions indicate that you don't believe he was in the process of ruining the airline. If you actually believed that why did you continue to work for QF when you thought it was being dragged out of business?
As for the drift into Geoff Dixon's payout.
Originally Posted by Milton Friedman
Most economic fallacies derive - from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another
That’s $100k that has always gone to QF, previously without hesitation. The fact that I am now willing to forgo my QF Platinum privileges
Originally Posted by Shlonghaul
And at the same time Darth was RUINING the worlds 10th largest airline
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem with this. Passengers are free to choose if they wish to fly an airline with a 1 to 36 ratio or a 1:50 ratio. If an individual thinks this is unacceptable they are free to choose not to fly with QF.
There are people in this world in positions of authority who will do want ever they want.If there were no checks being made and regulations enforced people who have no idea of the consequences would be at risk....
Most economic fallacies derive - from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another
As true today as the day he said it. If you are an employee and don't own the company you have no business questioning the pay of other employees. If you are a shareholder and don't like this then you have a mechanism in place already to take up this issue.
As true today as the day he said it. If you are an employee and don't own the company you have no business questioning the pay of other employees. If you are a shareholder and don't like this then you have a mechanism in place already to take up this issue.
Money gained is somehow derived from thin air and therefore has no impact on anyone else....Do you think that money is taken from a bottomless pit and that it has no impact at all on others....
Tell that to families who have a member with a gambling addiction...
Looking into your strategy of 100% freedom reminds me of Wall Street when started.... Ahh yes...Wall Street.....the leading example of market forces and the way things ought to be run....
Now can you explain to us the exact cause of the current GFC,where it started and how a number of CEO's and board members seem to think they are a law unto themselves...
Now of course if something is wrong ElPerro tells us ......
No need to do anything about it....Don't worry or complain...just resign.Let others get caught and look the other way.
Brilliant..........
I'm not mentioning any specific person or entity but if there were no regulatory bodies and people were free to do anything they want we would have a GFC every 5 years or perhaps permantly.
Even now after what has happened some CEO's and boards in the US and around the world still carry on as if nothing has happened and what they do will have no impact on anyone else....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi LowerLobe,
I'm glad you asked.. This will be a long post as you've actually managed to ask a lot of questions (that you obviously believe to be simple) that take a little explaining.
1. Seat belts - In an ideal world no , so long as they are informed of the possible consequences and risk. If people wish to place themselves at risk and they don't threaten the health and safety of a third party then they should be free to choose. If we regulate that seat belts must be worn why not regulate against sky diving?
2. Driving at excessive speed - of course, it places a third party at risk We allow people to drive at high speed on private property or on a race track but not on public roads because it risks harming others.
3. Not being told about the dangers of smoking - of course I don't support that. I didn't say people should not be told about risks. People should be free to choose what personal risk to their safety they accept so long as it doesn't effect a third party.
I didn't say money is a bottomless pit. Let me answer your initial question with a question. Why doesn't the Earth have the same amount of wealth that it did in the year 100AD? Are you far better off than your ancestors because money was transferred from someone to you? I'll fill in one piece of the puzzle for you. It wasn't because a central government commanded that people should earn more.
That's a matter for private individuals. If an individual wishes to gamble his / her own money away he should be free to do that. If other family members are unhappy with that then that's a matter for the individual and their family. If it's someone elses money, then that's a crime. That is what government is for.
I didn't advocate 100% freedom. When you construct a "straw man argument" and tear it down you don't advance your point. Wall Street was about one man "Gordon Gecko" taking advantage of breaches in private agreements. Companies seek mutual benefit in making deals and enforce "Non Disclosure Agreements". What Gordon Gecko did was hire someone to break into premises in order to gain information on private agreements. That is one key role of government - to enforce private agreements. Hence why Gordon Gecko found himself in grief.
A failure due to (not because of an absense of) government intervention. Why are loans under duress at 6% in the US whilst under 1% in Australia? It's not because of government intervention in Australia. It's because the US Democrats intervened in the market years ago. They brought in legislation that would financially harm US Financial institution is they didn't loan a certain amount of their loans to "disadvantaged groups". Secondly the US Government made it possible for US Financial institutions to loan money and transfer the risk. They made it possible for a bank to loan money to a low income person and on sell the loan to what was essentially a Federal Government institution (i.e Fannie Mae- a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE)). The US Democrats disabled the free market mechanisms that prevent this. In the free market people make investment decisions (or in this case loan decisions) based on the risk versus reward. The US Government took away the risk. This is the core problem.
So yes, the GFC was not caused by a lack of regulation but because of the unintended consequences of government intervention.
I never advocated an absense of government in the market. The government should be there to enforce deals between two private individuals / companies. They should not be there to prevent agreements between private individuals as the current Prime Minister desires.
That's ridiculous. What you are suggesting is that people would continually make bad investments knowing they would lose their skin in 5 years (or every year if you believe your "permanenty GFC". Your lack of belief in rational human behaviour is staggering. If it become a known fact that shares tank every 5 years do you think people would invest in shares? Of course not. You are being illogical. Again to quote a Nobel Laureate
You seem to lack a basic understand of free markets. The owners of QANTAS would not have offered to pay Geoff Dixon the amount they did unless they thought the company would benefit from it. Geoff Dixon would not have agreed to work for QANTAS unless he thought he would benefit from it.
I'll conclude with another Milton Friedman quote:
You argue against Freedom, economic Freedom at that. Whether you acknowledge that our not you are in the same class as Stalin. Do you believe socialism did the former USSR well?
I'm glad you asked.. This will be a long post as you've actually managed to ask a lot of questions (that you obviously believe to be simple) that take a little explaining.
Originally Posted by LowerLobe
Do you have a problem with people not wearing seat belts,driving at excessive speed or not being told about the dangers of smoking...because if there were no regulators checking things in life, people would be free to do anything they want without understanding they are being taken for a ride and suffer the consequences.
2. Driving at excessive speed - of course, it places a third party at risk We allow people to drive at high speed on private property or on a race track but not on public roads because it risks harming others.
3. Not being told about the dangers of smoking - of course I don't support that. I didn't say people should not be told about risks. People should be free to choose what personal risk to their safety they accept so long as it doesn't effect a third party.
Originally Posted by LowerLobe
Money gained is somehow derived from thin air and therefore has no impact on anyone else....Do you think that money is taken from a bottomless pit and that it has no impact at all on others....
Tell that to families who have a member with a gambling addiction
Originally Posted by LowerLobe
Looking into your strategy of 100% freedom reminds me of Wall Street when started.... Ahh yes...Wall Street.....the leading example of market forces and the way things ought to be run....
Originally Posted by LowerLobe
Now can you explain to us the exact cause of the current GFC,where it started and how a number of CEO's and board members seem to think they are a law unto themselves...
So yes, the GFC was not caused by a lack of regulation but because of the unintended consequences of government intervention.
Originally Posted by LowerLobe
'm not mentioning any specific person or entity but if there were no regulatory bodies and people were free to do anything they want we would have a GFC every 5 years or perhaps permantly.
people were free to do anything they want we would have a GFC every 5 years or perhaps permantly.
Originally Posted by Milton Friedman
The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
I'll conclude with another Milton Friedman quote:
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
Last edited by ElPerro; 25th Sep 2009 at 07:46.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dog House
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No response required on this. See post at 06:52. You demonstrate the lack of ability to discuss issues. Why did you bother posting Obie?
Last edited by ElPerro; 25th Sep 2009 at 10:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Top of Descent
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the dog house El Perro
Oh dear!...we have a foolish philosopher in our midst!
So El Perro why did I not choose to leave Qantas whilst Darth was ruining it? Why should I do so after more than thirty years working with great people at a great airline just because one sociopath comes along with his cronies who’s apparently only concern is to make as much money for themselves in the best tradition of Wall Streets Gordon Gekko? You see I’ve been around long enough to know that the busiest person at Qantas is the sign writer changing the names of the managers on their office door ………..they come and they go and I’m still here. All Qantas employees, of every department, can thank our lucky stars that the Dixon-Jackson endorsed takeover attempt of 2007 didn’t go through or Qantas, an airline begun in 1920, an Australian company, most likely would no longer exist. We’re a better company, a better airline now that the cancer has been removed from it.
In any case it’s my business who I work for, or whether I decide to leave, or apply to work for another company, and in this you can mind your own business.
You’re apparently quite young as you have no understanding of how thing’s were like working for a company before the CEOs main concern was for their own bottom line. You need to read up on Enron, Bernard Madoff, Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski, WorldComs Bernard Ebbers, Christopher Skase, One Tel & HIH Insurance for starters, ohh and another little thing known as the GFC.
If you are a shareholder and don't like this then you have a mechanism in place already to take up this issue.
According to Wikipedia “El perro is a neo-realist fable about a man and a dog” I believe it’s time for you to head back to your own prescribed location El Perro…..the dog house, better still let your hero Darth take you out for a long walk on Balmoral Beach and feed you some doggie treats……….he can afford it.
short flights long nights
perhaps Perro is Darth?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why doesn't the Earth have the same amount of wealth that it did in the year 100AD?
Wall Street was about one man "Gordon Gecko" taking advantage of breaches in private agreements.
The GFC was according to El Perro due to...
A failure due to (not because of an absense of) government intervention.
So yes, the GFC was not caused by a lack of regulation but because of the unintended consequences of government intervention.
the most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
You argue against Freedom, economic Freedom at that. Whether you acknowledge that our not you are in the same class as Stalin. Do you believe socialism did the former USSR well?
ElPerro....It's time to step away from the keyboard and start taking whatever medication you stopped taking....
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Darth Maul
I have to agree with SOPS. I am thinking Elperro may actually be Darth Di..n ??
Perhaps the insidious former QF Master will be around to taunt the aviation world for decades to come ?? He will hide behind many disguises.Never wishing to expose himself.
Or maybe Elperro is one of the upper echelon at the Roo,a true zealot,a loyalist, and a believer in Darth's management style, the way of the 'dark side'?
Unfortunately Darth is actually not like cancer. Cancer eventually rots a human being away. Darth is still kicking along quite well. He is more like Satan I think.
Besides the world needs philosophers to amuse the masses with their ramblings. As Mel Brookes once quoted ' a philosopher is actually a bulls..t artist' !!!!
Perhaps the insidious former QF Master will be around to taunt the aviation world for decades to come ?? He will hide behind many disguises.Never wishing to expose himself.
Or maybe Elperro is one of the upper echelon at the Roo,a true zealot,a loyalist, and a believer in Darth's management style, the way of the 'dark side'?
Unfortunately Darth is actually not like cancer. Cancer eventually rots a human being away. Darth is still kicking along quite well. He is more like Satan I think.
Besides the world needs philosophers to amuse the masses with their ramblings. As Mel Brookes once quoted ' a philosopher is actually a bulls..t artist' !!!!