Qantas Shame

[Cactusjack]

El Lameo

I would say he/she is both !

[ElPerro]

Originally Posted by me

the most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.

Originally Posted by LowerLobe

What a load of unadulterated rubbish....Tell that to the tens of thousands if not millions of people world wide who have lost everything over the years since the inception of the stock market....both parties benefit....you don't sell used cars or real estate do you?

I believe you've misunderstood what happens when a person buys shares. They want to own part of a company in order to have the opportunity to experience capital growth / dividends from ownership in a company should that company make a profit. They want that and pay for it. They benefit as they get what they want - an opportunity. If they want a more certain outcome then they are free to choose numerous investment options where the probability of return is higher. Share investment is not like the provision of labour where you agree to provide labour in return for a guarantee of payment for that labour (that's why we have laws making it illegal not to pay someone for their work, but no law guarantees a certain return on the purchase of a share in a company.)

In a non-free market (socialism) the government "owns" a company on behalf of taxpayers. If you don't want your money invested in that company you have no choice - the government has taken your money and is investing it against your will. You no longer are free to choose as you must follow the "collective" opinion.

Originally Posted by LowerLobe

How about a lack of intervention in the greed which pervades the corporate sector even after the melt down....I will give you one example ..Bernard Madoff.

There are already laws against what he did. He breached the conditions of the private arrangement he had made with investors. As I said before, that is what government is for - enforcing agreements between individuals who choose to enter into an agreement.

The "shame" at QANTAS is the influence of unions. They lower employment and cause great harm those at the bottom of society.

Originally Posted by CactusJack

Unfortunately Darth is actually not like cancer. Cancer eventually rots a human being away.

Well to continue the human body analogy (and at risk of sounding crass) I guess unions are like maggots. Eating away at the flesh of individual companies which make up the economy. The bits of meat they chew on are actually the poorest in society. Whilst you may believe you are getting one over Dixon with industrial action or a given "EBA" you aren't (the recent payout should prove that to you), you are pushing those at the bottom off the ladder off the bottom rung.

[hadagutfull]

I'm affraid the only maggots are the fly blown management and board who are fattening up on the carcass of a once great and profitable airline. As fir shareholders, they are free to invest where ever they like.. I agree!
How they can sit back and watch the sabotage happening defies logic.
Any profitable company has engaged and motivated staff.. That is in itself an investment that will pay dividends to the shareholders and company!!!
Perhaps we can forgo a payrise and union fees to pay for a royal commission into this company and all the criminals who have milked it..
Perhaps some forensic accounting into jet star might reveal some interesting news.
Even all the connections between board members and other companies supplying outsourced services to Qantas???
There would be a very hi level of co operation between staff/ unions and management if the game was not so blatently rigged!!!

[lowerlobe]

I believe you've misunderstood what happens when a person buys shares. They want to own part of a company in order to have the opportunity to experience capital growth / dividends from ownership in a company should that company make a profit.

No actually ElPerro....I think it is you that is misunderstands what happens...

The individual buys shares in the HOPE that the shares will rise in value...not only from a profit but from other events.All to often this is not the case.

I asked you about Bernie Madoof....and this was your answer...

There are already laws against what he did. He breached the conditions of the private arrangement he had made with investors. As I said before, that is what government is for - enforcing agreements between individuals who choose to enter into an agreement.

Well,the laws didn't stop him did they?...

The "shame" at QANTAS is the influence of unions. They lower employment and cause great harm those at the bottom of society.

Actually,if it wasn't for the management that run so many organisations there would be no need for unions would there?

[Dropt McGutz]

ElPerro, what do you think of Mr. Dixon's final payout? It was 10% of what the profit was. Is that a good thing ElPerro? ElPerro, do you think he should have taken less? Just imagine how many jobs his millions would pay for. Please reply ElPerro.

[ElPerro]

The individual buys shares in the HOPE that the shares will rise in value...not only from a profit but from other events.All to often this is not the case.

Exactly, they benefited from the exchange in that they were granted exactly what they wanted. In your world you, your union's super fund, the man on the street would not have an opportunity to invest in any company because you don't want freedom of choice, you want certainty of outcome.

Well,the laws didn't stop him

Nope. And you've proven my point. Introducing more government intervention and more laws won't stop people breaking those new laws either. People break laws. The only thing we do is punish those who break them. Restricting individual economic freedom will not stop that occuring. If you argued that government enforcement of current law should be better - not for more government intervention then you may have a point.

Actually,if it wasn't for the management that run so many organisations there would be no need for unions would there?

I don't think you really understand what unions are for. What exactly do you think unions do for yourself and more importantly those below you on the economic ladder.

Edit:

Just imagine how many jobs his millions would pay for. Please reply ElPerro.

Not a single one. Companies don't employ people based on how much cash they have in the bank, they employ people based on if they are going to make them money or not. Or to put it another way - if they will add to shareholder value. Geoff Dixon's payout has absolutely no effect on whether one more pilot, engineer, cabin crew or cleaner will make QANTAS any more money next year.

[lowerlobe]

Exactly, they benefited from the exchange in that they were granted exactly what they wanted. In your world you, your union's super fund, the man on the street would not have an opportunity to invest in any company because you don't want freedom of choice, you want certainty of outcome.

That's the funniest thing you have said.....so how do you explain all the people who have lost everything or at least a huge slice of their super or is that the certainty of outcome that you mentioned...?

I don't think you really understand what unions are for

Oh I understand all to well....as I said if it wasn't for the actions of unions people would still be working 17 hours a day in the mines...

If it wasn't for management greed there would never have been a need for collective bargaining....

[Dropt McGutz]

Come on ElPerro. You're obviously very knowledgable on all of this. Show some credibility and answer everyone's questions. Now answer mine will you?

[qf 1]

el perro,so how is one man taking 10 % of a companys profits with a work force of 35000 odd people a free market economy in action.The man did not own the company

[ElPerro]

That's the funniest thing you have said.....so how do you explain all the people who have lost everything or at least a huge slice of their super or is that the certainty of outcome that you mentioned...?

Easy. They purchased ownership in a company. They didn't purchase a AAA rated sovereign backed bond (although technically that isn't even a 100% probability of a given return on equity). They wanted ownership in a company, and someone else wanted to no longer own a company. Both parties benefited.

Oh I understand all to well....as I said if it wasn't for the actions of unions people would still be working 17 hours a day in the mines...

A complete misnomer. "Union gains" have been only attributed because a union was involved. Union achievement is not the cause. If a company needed to pay a higher market price for labor a union was "seen" to have made that gain. This is not a new phenomenon, it's as old as doctors using the hippocratic oath as a restriction of labor practices / agreement of the division of labour. The original stated ""I will not cut persons laboring under the stone but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work.". An agreement between physicians and surgeons.

Let me explain what unions do.

Your union argues and through the threat of industrial action gains a 5% higher wage rate than would otherwise have been the case. This causes the airline to hire less workers in that field (if any good costs more then the amount sold is less than would otherwise be the case). As a result there are workers who would otherwise have been employed by the airline.

These employees seek other employment. Obviously they can't obtain employment in careers that require higher qualifications so they shuffle down into the best paying job below their desired employment. This chain continues down until you hit the minimum wage level resulting in those with the least professional qualifications being pushed out of a job due to those who would otherwise have been employed at a higher level.

Your union is about gaining you, a union member, a wage above that which otherwise would be the case in a free market. That comes at the expense of those at the bottom of the employment ladder as those who miss out on employment in your field move down the scale.

Sure, you are pursuing your own financial self interest, but to lecture others on greed when it is your own self interest costing the poorest in society employment is overreaching your argument.

[Dropt McGutz]

Okay ElPerro, you finally answered one of my questions. Still thinking about the others I assume.

they employ people based on if they are going to make them money or not. Or to put it another way - if they will add to shareholder value

So why did Mr. Dixon get such a big payout and why was he paid so much? And aren't EBA's about give and take too?

[ElPerro]

So why did Mr. Dixon get such a big payout and why was he paid so much? And aren't EBA's about give and take too?

Easy, Dixon was payed that because the board of directors as representatives of the owners of QANTAS believed that his individual knowledge / skill produced more than that for the company.

No EBA's aren't about give and take. They are about take. They are about an organisation using an effective monopoly of labor supply to force another party to pay them more than they are worth in a free market. It's not "organised labor" taking from management. It's about "organised labour" taking from those who would otherwise be employed. A company isn't going to reduce the salary of the board of directors salary because of your EBA. They will hire less engineers, flight attendants, pilots, and attempt to outsource to parties who accept the market rate.

[qf 1]

rubbish elperro,wages were not being forced up by the union,which in turn pushed down worker numbers,the union was looking at bring up the wages to a parity equal to most western countries for aircraft engineers.the problem with aircraft engineers wages is linked to the demise of Ansett.once they folded there was only one place to work as a group 20 engineer and that was Qantas.where they had a monoply on the trade in this country(where if you didn't work for them,you didn't work)

[ElPerro]

once [Ansett] folded there was only one place to work as a group 20 engineer and that was Qantas.where they had a monoply on the trade in this country(where if you didn't work for them,you didn't work).

Your logic is incorrect. Firstly, it's factually incorrect that QANTAS had a monopsony over aircraft engineers in this country. Then or now.

Additionally to insist that all levels of employment in all industries in one country must only grow or their number remain static is illogical. If that were the case the steam train drivers union would be alive and thriving. Whilst I admit we are talking about unemployment due to different reasons the analogy is still valid.

At that time (ANSETT) some aircraft engineers began employment with Virgin Blue. Not long after some lost employment with Ansett. So two airlines existed still, and they were not the only employer of aircraft engineers (especially in the globe)

The union was looking at bring up the wages to a parity equal to most western countries for aircraft engineers

Why should the wages be at parity globally (or in the Western World) when in each country, each business has it's own fuel costs, tax regimes to comply with, statutory compliance costs, trade barriers, subsidies (government owned airlines), costs of living, supply of labour etc. Why should wages be at parity? Petrol in the middle east costs but a fraction of what it does here, should a union or government body insist on price parity for petrol?

If you want wage parity then you should advocate free migration for skilled labour, of course that won't work in a world where union's can shut a company down for hiring people for the wage they are actually willing to work for.

[Cactusjack]

4 Questions For Elperro.

Hey Elperro, 4 questions for you my friend , no strings attached here.

1) Did you vote Liberal or Labor in the last election ?

2) What are your views on CASA`s regulatory abilities,performance wise ?

3) Fan of Branson, yes or no ?

4) Next investment opportunity - Should I increase my investment in Gold, Casiono's (e.g PBL) or some other arena ?

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

ElPerro is definitely aircrafts love brother. See here http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ers-smh-2.html or http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...-jet-awas.html as examples. Hey aircraft, oops, sorry, I mean ElPerro, how's your sandpit going? Did Father Christmas bring you any more Tonka toys for it?

[Shlonghaul]

Posted by, and with thanks to, Flugbegleiter, on thread 1,750 jobs to go at Qantas

PS: ElPerro, you are what is wrong with this country these days. You think you are smarter than the average bloke with a more "big picture" view of the world. Your greedy, capitalistic, corporate philosophies and ideas repulse me. Don't even bother commenting on this, because nothing you can say will change my opinion of people like you. You are here just to stir up trouble.

Never a truer statement has been made

[Dropt McGutz]

ElPerro, QF pilots went without a payrise for over four years whilst the company made record profits and the executives received very large bonuses etc. The pilots were eventually able to negotiate a variation to the EBA which was a win/win for both pilots and the company WITHOUT the threat of any industrial action. We did receive back pay, however our payrises, after tax, don't even keep up with inflation, unlike executive remuneration.

[Z Force]

I have a policy of not critisicing people on this forum but in this case I am unable to abide by that. ElPerro, you are a twit.

[whatever6719]

Interesting (yet depressing reading) here -:

Plane Talking

I cant see how totally gutting QF and growing JQ at all costs is smart.
Practically everyone bags JQ. They certainly dont have a good name out there
compared to QF. Cheap fares may be OK to stimulate demand here and there
but to go on a wholesale rout and kill the goose that lays the golden egg is
absolutely crazy!!

I cant think of another airline that is going down this path anywhere.
What is going on here???!!!!