Merged: Senate Inquiry
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Sunfish,
Sorry, I should have been a little clearer. The point I was trying to make was that you often hear the phrase "competency based training" used as if it was some kind of revolutionary new training method. swh uses it justify "embracing" the MPL, AJ uses it in the senate inquiry to justify the cadet scheme.
But in reality, what is the difference? Under the traditional training system, you still had to be assessed as competent at various stages of the training. The way the phrase is being used on occasion might leave a person with limited knowledge flight training with the impression that under the old system you just did your 150 hrs and got handed a CPL.
When Qantas decided to change to competency based training, the only difference I noticed was that the forms they fill out at the end of a sim session changed. Everything else was business as usual.
Sorry, I should have been a little clearer. The point I was trying to make was that you often hear the phrase "competency based training" used as if it was some kind of revolutionary new training method. swh uses it justify "embracing" the MPL, AJ uses it in the senate inquiry to justify the cadet scheme.
But in reality, what is the difference? Under the traditional training system, you still had to be assessed as competent at various stages of the training. The way the phrase is being used on occasion might leave a person with limited knowledge flight training with the impression that under the old system you just did your 150 hrs and got handed a CPL.
When Qantas decided to change to competency based training, the only difference I noticed was that the forms they fill out at the end of a sim session changed. Everything else was business as usual.
In the military we staged "tests" when we deliberately made sure that things did not go according to plan. We made those things happen in ways that the candidate was unaware of. We deliberately set guys up to fail, starting with getting them pissed the night before, then feeding them bullsh1te, then telling them to work with troops who were in on the joke.
Originally Posted by Capt_SNAFU
A CPL holder that gets into an airline also has to do an endorsement on type.
I am guessing most people on this thread think that the Day VFR syllabus which is the course outline for the CP(A)L gives the required knowledge and skills required in today’s multi crew airline operation.
People have not come out and said it, however reading between the lines they think that reducing the number of hours in a GA single is somehow reducing the MP(A)L holders ability to perform as a pilot in a multi crew airline operation. I would disagree, the syllabus for the MP(A)L is geared towards the required knowledge and skill required for a multi crew airline operation.
If anything I think new MP(A)L holder would be a more capable FO than a new CP(A)L holder with a new type rating. If you get a chance have a look at the required training in ICAO Doc 9868 PANS TRG, and then compare that to the Day VFR syllabus, and make you own assessment of which pilot is given the better training for a multi-crew airline environment (i.e. IFR high performance turbine).
Originally Posted by Capt_SNAFU
I also didn't think too many MP licensees had been issued worldwide.
Those who actually do the numbers know that a Level D sim is more expensive to run than a GA piston twin or single. People who are making claims that this is a ”cheap” way of training have not costed a MP(A)L training process.
Originally Posted by 'holic
Good point, except we're all talking about getting your 150 hr CPL, plus a few thousand hours in GA and then joining an airline. Which airlines are hiring bare 150 hr CPLs?
Originally Posted by 'holic
As opposed to what they do at the moment, which is .... ?
Originally Posted by 'holic
When Qantas decided to change to competency based training, the only difference I noticed was that the forms they fill out at the end of a sim session changed.
In other organisations, a lot more should have changed, however you may have been unaware of the changes. For example when doing a V1 cut, under the old system, it was up to the checker to decide what technique is acceptable or not, under a competency based system, the checkers have to be trained how to deliver and assess competency based training, this means for a V1 cut the required outcomes that define "competent" have to be defined by the training organisation upfront. This may involve defining acceptable headings, speeds, bank angles, pitch, thrust, SOP and checklist usage. It takes away from the checker the ability to fail a student because they do not do things they way they "like" it, if a student meets the required parameters, they are deemed competent.
Originally Posted by The The
There is so much wrong with that kind of mindset, it is not even worth bothering starting to debate it.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't the balance of the argument centre on whether the MPL can provide suitable directed training to candidates that has, in the past, been gained in terms of experience by pilots operating in GA and the military. It may not have been jet specific but it is the esoteric aspects of our craft learnt in those spheres; weather, decision making, SA etc that we are now hoping to teach candidates in x hours in a sim. It may have taken x hours of airline operation or x arrivals and departures for a pilot to have encountered a similar problem and taken appropriate action such that an incident/accident is avoided. It is unarguable that the crew of QF32 gained incredible insight (experience) from their incident yet every aspect of this non-normal cannot be taught in a sim because you literally had to be there. Most of us haven't had such an extreme situation but have had situations thousands of times in thousands of hours.
It's ironic that my son is learning to drive a car in a competency and experienced based system. He must complete 120 hours of experience before he can sit his, competency based, test. Then for a year he can only drive with one passenger to mitigate risk to others while he gains experience. Perhaps we should get the RTA to submit at the enquiry.
It's ironic that my son is learning to drive a car in a competency and experienced based system. He must complete 120 hours of experience before he can sit his, competency based, test. Then for a year he can only drive with one passenger to mitigate risk to others while he gains experience. Perhaps we should get the RTA to submit at the enquiry.
In the media, and in staff communications, BB repeatedly stated that he "welcomed" the senate enquiry as it would get all the facts out in the open - now these "facts" seem to be a secret - oh dear!
When is someone who can, going to call this guy's bluff and expose him for what he is?
Can/do the board member's read?, or do they just hope this will all go away and is not really happening at all?
(maybe someone with a bit more techno skills could post the media statements he made when the enquiry was announced)
When is someone who can, going to call this guy's bluff and expose him for what he is?
Can/do the board member's read?, or do they just hope this will all go away and is not really happening at all?
(maybe someone with a bit more techno skills could post the media statements he made when the enquiry was announced)
More info on the latest pay to fly scams. Senate Inquiry please note
While CASA surveillance would ensure this type of situation would not happen in Australia, it certainly is more food for thought for the current Senate Inquiry looking into pay to fly schemes whether overseas or in Australia.
DGCA to bring over 10,000 commercial pilot license holders under scanner (INDIA)
NEW DELHI: Aviation regulator DGCA plans to bring under the scanner over 10,000 commercial pilot license (CPL) holders and conduct third-party audit of all flying schools in the country in the wake of cases of forgery behind securing of licences coming to light.
As the forgery cases have given rise to fears that travellers' life is being endangered by incompetent pilots, the regulator is planning a slew of steps to check the malaise.
Apart from this, the regulator is also worried about the problems faced by a large number of Indian youths, who go abroad for training and return with fake or invalid licenses, after spending lakhs of rupees.
Besides the six cases of pilots using forged documents to get their licenses, "we have got some more suspicious cases, but there is nothing confirmed as yet and investigations are going on," DGCA chief EK Bharat Bhushan said.
The six cases of forged documents that have come to light are two each from air carriers IndiGo and SpiceJet and one each from Air India and MDLR.
While all the 4,000-odd holders of Airline Transport Pilot Licenses (ATPLs) are currently being probed, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation is "considering looking into all the CPLs", he said. There are over 10,000 CPL holders in the country.
In a bid to combat fudging of records, the DGCA is determined to have an online option for students, beginning with "at least in some (examination) centres, by July," the Director General said, adding, "We are working with the National Informatics Centre on this project" that should be in place soon.
Asked whether flying training schools were following stringent standards laid down by the regulator, Bhushan said: "There have been cases ... there is suspicion that at least some of the flying hours that they are logging in the student's log books, are not genuine".
He also indicated that problems relating to training infrastructure have also been found.
These training academies provide flight training and issue CPLs to the successful students. A separate set of aviation regulations or Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) have also been framed for such institutions.
"I want to examine the condition and quality of training they are giving. We have to ensure that the conditions and quality of training are maintained. My intention is to have a team from outside, a third-party systematic audit of these schools," Bhushan said.
There are about 40 flying schools in India. Under the CAR, a flying school gets a license which is valid for a year. It is renewed after a DGCA inspection and "on satisfying that the institutes maintain their required capability. The inspection is carried out as per the standardised check-list", the DGCA chief said.
In this context, the DGCA plans to get the quality of training being imparted by such flying schools abroad examined by the regulatory bodies in those countries and organisations like the Federation Aviation Administration of the US.
"We have plans to examine the quality of training given in some of these flying schools (abroad) by some international bodies or our counterparts like the Federation Aviation Administration to authenticate the quality of training imparted by these centres," Bhushan said.
The DGCA was also considering sending a team of his officials to visit some such flying schools abroad, where many Indians have been getting pilot training.
DGCA to bring over 10,000 commercial pilot license holders under scanner (INDIA)
NEW DELHI: Aviation regulator DGCA plans to bring under the scanner over 10,000 commercial pilot license (CPL) holders and conduct third-party audit of all flying schools in the country in the wake of cases of forgery behind securing of licences coming to light.
As the forgery cases have given rise to fears that travellers' life is being endangered by incompetent pilots, the regulator is planning a slew of steps to check the malaise.
Apart from this, the regulator is also worried about the problems faced by a large number of Indian youths, who go abroad for training and return with fake or invalid licenses, after spending lakhs of rupees.
Besides the six cases of pilots using forged documents to get their licenses, "we have got some more suspicious cases, but there is nothing confirmed as yet and investigations are going on," DGCA chief EK Bharat Bhushan said.
The six cases of forged documents that have come to light are two each from air carriers IndiGo and SpiceJet and one each from Air India and MDLR.
While all the 4,000-odd holders of Airline Transport Pilot Licenses (ATPLs) are currently being probed, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation is "considering looking into all the CPLs", he said. There are over 10,000 CPL holders in the country.
In a bid to combat fudging of records, the DGCA is determined to have an online option for students, beginning with "at least in some (examination) centres, by July," the Director General said, adding, "We are working with the National Informatics Centre on this project" that should be in place soon.
Asked whether flying training schools were following stringent standards laid down by the regulator, Bhushan said: "There have been cases ... there is suspicion that at least some of the flying hours that they are logging in the student's log books, are not genuine".
He also indicated that problems relating to training infrastructure have also been found.
These training academies provide flight training and issue CPLs to the successful students. A separate set of aviation regulations or Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) have also been framed for such institutions.
"I want to examine the condition and quality of training they are giving. We have to ensure that the conditions and quality of training are maintained. My intention is to have a team from outside, a third-party systematic audit of these schools," Bhushan said.
There are about 40 flying schools in India. Under the CAR, a flying school gets a license which is valid for a year. It is renewed after a DGCA inspection and "on satisfying that the institutes maintain their required capability. The inspection is carried out as per the standardised check-list", the DGCA chief said.
In this context, the DGCA plans to get the quality of training being imparted by such flying schools abroad examined by the regulatory bodies in those countries and organisations like the Federation Aviation Administration of the US.
"We have plans to examine the quality of training given in some of these flying schools (abroad) by some international bodies or our counterparts like the Federation Aviation Administration to authenticate the quality of training imparted by these centres," Bhushan said.
The DGCA was also considering sending a team of his officials to visit some such flying schools abroad, where many Indians have been getting pilot training.
This may involve defining acceptable headings, speeds, bank angles, pitch, thrust, SOP and checklist usage. It takes away from the checker the ability to fail a student because they do not do things they way they "like" it, if a student meets the required parameters, they are deemed competent.
Now look for example, at the Day VFR syllabus competency based boxes starting with the actual start of the take off roll, you will be able to see a continuous listing of every single "skill" movement by a pilot and these are numerous - each of which must be assessed and ticked.
The instructor or testing officer will need total recall of every facet of the take off and subsequent engine failure procedures in order to accurately assess the student's competency. Most of the time the instructor will not only be unable to write fast enough as the student accelerates from a standing start, he may even miss a box or two while heads down busily scrawling comments.
This is anal marking at it's worst. But yet it is called Competency based marking. Surely it is better for the pilot under test and certainly more efficient, to allow the testing officer to take a broad view of the conduct of the take off and climb out with a failed engine, rather than have to assess so many individual parts and tick the numerous boxes in the limited time available until the next sequence of box ticking for competency begins.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't the balance of the argument centre on whether the MPL can provide suitable directed training to candidates that has, in the past, been gained in terms of experience by pilots operating in GA and the military
Is it easier/safer/cheaper to teach someone who can fly how to operate a (insert aircraft here)? or..
Is it easier/safer/cheaper to teach someone who can operate a (insert aircraft here) how to fly?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I would say it was easier/cheaper/safer to teach someone who knew how to fly to operate a B777.
I would contend that the airline would find it easier and cheaper, but not necessarily safer, to teach someone who could 'operate' a B777 to fly.
I get your drift though Alistair.
I would contend that the airline would find it easier and cheaper, but not necessarily safer, to teach someone who could 'operate' a B777 to fly.
I get your drift though Alistair.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orstralya
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memo to Julia Gillard & Co.
Are the government of this country really so happy as to silently stand-by and to allow all this to occur?
Wake up Australia! We're being eaten alive by the so called 'Smartest Guys in the Room'.
Although protected (read legal) industrial action is not going to happen at Qantas this side of Anzac Day, what would happen if the pilots, the engineers, the refuellers and the baggage handlers all withdrew their current pay claims?
Nothing. Based on nothing more than the statements made by Qantas group CEO Alan Joyce about how unprofitable its international business is, and how crippling labor costs are in Australia, it wouldn’t matter if the respective unions lined up outside Joyce’s office tomorrow morning promising a pay freeze for the next three years or five years.
Their jobs are still toast, because no matter what productivity deals they offer, no matter how much they are prepared to curtail pay and conditions, the company refuses to negotiate guarantees over keeping flying and engineering jobs in this country.
In a real sense, the noise the pilots and engineers and other Qantas employees are making about job security, are giving a failed management a cover behind which to hide.
While the timing is coincidental, and simultaneous protected industrial action by pilots, engineers, refuellers and baggage handlers may seem bad news for Qantas and travellers, the labor unrest is no more serious than the apparent failure of the current management and board to run an expanding, profitable and useful company.
For at least the past three months the tired old clichés about Qantas being undermined by ‘dumping’ on international routes have looked absurd beside the likes of Singapore Airlines and Emirates charging more for their premium products than Qantas, and holding their market share steady or rising while Qantas, clinging to aged jets and poor network decisions, keeps sinking toward single figures in market share.
(Qantas had only 17.7 percent of the international market in February, and even with Jetstar international reaching 7.6 percent share, it only had 25.6 per cent of the market as a group compared to a 35 per cent share in 2003 before Jetstar was invented, only to help drive Qantas customers elsewhere.)
The lesson from international traveller defections to foreign carriers may be that premium payers don’t care what a fare costs, and are abandoning Qantas for what they see as superior quality and convenience.
The current Qantas group strategy seems to be one of continued contraction, in international travel, and a line in the sand in domestic which is starting to look as much under threat from Tiger as Virgin Blue. It can’t go on.
In this morning’s installment of the industrial-action-about–to- tsunami-Qantas genre, in The Australian, its spokesperson says:
“The unions are threatening industrial action while the company deals with rapidly increasing fuel prices, an underperforming international business and the operational impact of natural disasters in New Zealand, Japan and in Australia.”
But its competitors are dealing with the same misfortunes, yet benefiting from the rebound from the GFC far more successfully than Qantas. Apart from the A380 groundings, Qantas has the same challenges as its peer airlines, who are all posting record profits and paying their shareholders dividends, while Qantas isn’t.
It is this group under-performance that leaves Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, and Qantas chairman Leigh Clifford and the board, no-where to run.
Their only answer is to pursue a policy of shedding Australian jobs, and Australian taxation and superannuation levy obligations, by sham arrangements in which its pilots, cabin attendants and engineers, some of them still resident in Australia, are paid according to Singaporean or New Zealand work place agreements.
The implication of what Joyce says is that Qantas cannot afford to be Australian to be competitive. It intends to deal with foreign competition to Europe for example, by basing Australian registered jets in Singapore, where they will fly between Singapore and Europe and Singapore and Australia, thus imitating the advantages it says Singapore Airlines enjoys.
This de-Australianisation of Qantas may reflect a wider view in business that Australia cannot maintain internationally competitive enterprises in its own country. It’s a debate quite a number of business leaders have joined one way or the other in recent decades.
But it is a painful position when it involves a strategy to gut the piloting and engineer excellence of Qantas for the cheapest source of labor available abroad. It even involves under cutting Australian jobs within Jetstar with Asia sourced Jetstar employees being paid according to Asia terms and conditions while flying in Australia.
These strategies, which also included Jetstar flying cadet pilots to NZ to open NZD bank accounts for pay which would avoid Australian superannuation and taxation obligations while working and flying exclusively in Australia, are at the core of union unrest and calls for job security clauses, whether pilots or engineers.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of demanding job security, there is a much bigger issue for the government of taxation security. Will it allow a precedent where anyone can be employed under a foreign contract issued by a foreign entity and evade Australian taxation and super levies while performing duties in Australia?
For Qantas, this off-shore migration of assets and labor is unlikely to lift earnings enough to sustain the profits and dividends shareholders might have expected if Qantas and Jetstar continue to drive customers away because of poor management decisions on fleet and network.
Qantas needs to attract customers more than it needs to destroy its traditions of skills and excellence in flying and engineering. If it fails it will not be in a position of strength when, as most analysts expect, the Asia-Pacific airline industry gets serious about trans border consolidations.
Nothing. Based on nothing more than the statements made by Qantas group CEO Alan Joyce about how unprofitable its international business is, and how crippling labor costs are in Australia, it wouldn’t matter if the respective unions lined up outside Joyce’s office tomorrow morning promising a pay freeze for the next three years or five years.
Their jobs are still toast, because no matter what productivity deals they offer, no matter how much they are prepared to curtail pay and conditions, the company refuses to negotiate guarantees over keeping flying and engineering jobs in this country.
In a real sense, the noise the pilots and engineers and other Qantas employees are making about job security, are giving a failed management a cover behind which to hide.
While the timing is coincidental, and simultaneous protected industrial action by pilots, engineers, refuellers and baggage handlers may seem bad news for Qantas and travellers, the labor unrest is no more serious than the apparent failure of the current management and board to run an expanding, profitable and useful company.
For at least the past three months the tired old clichés about Qantas being undermined by ‘dumping’ on international routes have looked absurd beside the likes of Singapore Airlines and Emirates charging more for their premium products than Qantas, and holding their market share steady or rising while Qantas, clinging to aged jets and poor network decisions, keeps sinking toward single figures in market share.
(Qantas had only 17.7 percent of the international market in February, and even with Jetstar international reaching 7.6 percent share, it only had 25.6 per cent of the market as a group compared to a 35 per cent share in 2003 before Jetstar was invented, only to help drive Qantas customers elsewhere.)
The lesson from international traveller defections to foreign carriers may be that premium payers don’t care what a fare costs, and are abandoning Qantas for what they see as superior quality and convenience.
The current Qantas group strategy seems to be one of continued contraction, in international travel, and a line in the sand in domestic which is starting to look as much under threat from Tiger as Virgin Blue. It can’t go on.
In this morning’s installment of the industrial-action-about–to- tsunami-Qantas genre, in The Australian, its spokesperson says:
“The unions are threatening industrial action while the company deals with rapidly increasing fuel prices, an underperforming international business and the operational impact of natural disasters in New Zealand, Japan and in Australia.”
But its competitors are dealing with the same misfortunes, yet benefiting from the rebound from the GFC far more successfully than Qantas. Apart from the A380 groundings, Qantas has the same challenges as its peer airlines, who are all posting record profits and paying their shareholders dividends, while Qantas isn’t.
It is this group under-performance that leaves Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, and Qantas chairman Leigh Clifford and the board, no-where to run.
Their only answer is to pursue a policy of shedding Australian jobs, and Australian taxation and superannuation levy obligations, by sham arrangements in which its pilots, cabin attendants and engineers, some of them still resident in Australia, are paid according to Singaporean or New Zealand work place agreements.
The implication of what Joyce says is that Qantas cannot afford to be Australian to be competitive. It intends to deal with foreign competition to Europe for example, by basing Australian registered jets in Singapore, where they will fly between Singapore and Europe and Singapore and Australia, thus imitating the advantages it says Singapore Airlines enjoys.
This de-Australianisation of Qantas may reflect a wider view in business that Australia cannot maintain internationally competitive enterprises in its own country. It’s a debate quite a number of business leaders have joined one way or the other in recent decades.
But it is a painful position when it involves a strategy to gut the piloting and engineer excellence of Qantas for the cheapest source of labor available abroad. It even involves under cutting Australian jobs within Jetstar with Asia sourced Jetstar employees being paid according to Asia terms and conditions while flying in Australia.
These strategies, which also included Jetstar flying cadet pilots to NZ to open NZD bank accounts for pay which would avoid Australian superannuation and taxation obligations while working and flying exclusively in Australia, are at the core of union unrest and calls for job security clauses, whether pilots or engineers.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of demanding job security, there is a much bigger issue for the government of taxation security. Will it allow a precedent where anyone can be employed under a foreign contract issued by a foreign entity and evade Australian taxation and super levies while performing duties in Australia?
For Qantas, this off-shore migration of assets and labor is unlikely to lift earnings enough to sustain the profits and dividends shareholders might have expected if Qantas and Jetstar continue to drive customers away because of poor management decisions on fleet and network.
Qantas needs to attract customers more than it needs to destroy its traditions of skills and excellence in flying and engineering. If it fails it will not be in a position of strength when, as most analysts expect, the Asia-Pacific airline industry gets serious about trans border consolidations.
Wake up Australia! We're being eaten alive by the so called 'Smartest Guys in the Room'.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Qantas tail is like Uluru and the Sydney Harbour Bridge
—we want to look after it, and we want you to look after it for us. But we need assurance on that side."
Senator Bill Heffernan, 25 February 2011
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: asia
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The implication of what Joyce says is that Qantas cannot afford to be Australian to be competitive
So what the hell is that little leprechaun
doing ?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not only Australian employees that AJ is trying to shaft, he and his pals are thumbing their nose at the Australian Government and its industrial relation laws, (including entitlements like compulsory superannuation), and taxation laws.
An Australian Business, Australian Aircraft, Australian staff based in Australia, on Singapore/New zealand contracts?????? Where will it all end?
On top of that AJ then expects to lobby the same government for protection.
AJ's QF master plan;
1. Cut costs
2. Lobby the government
3. Offshore the business
4. Whinge and blame everyone else
5. Cut more costs
Not exactly a sustainable business plan for the future is it AJ? Wouldn't the costs of damage to the brand far outweigh any gains from the cost cutting?
How about;
1. Engage and work with your employees which in return will allow you to create a more efficient workplace.
QF used to have very loyal employees until you and your mentor destroyed that goodwill.
Maybe have a read of Bransons book for some ideas, I'm sure JB can lend you a copy.
2. Expand the premium business and make the wealthy traveler feel important to the airline again. Concentrate Jetstar where it is most effective, capping the expansion of low cost carriers in Australia. Low cost operations are not conducive to longhaul routes.
3. Buy the right equipment for the Airline.
4. Lead by example, if you and your executives show restraint, maybe your employees will.
5. Be creative and open new routes.
6. Spend money on better quality inflight entertainment systems and overall product. Cut ridiculous expenditure, axe these C grade celebs on airshows.
7. Expand. There is a lot of wealth coming out of China, India and Russia. They probably would however prefer to drink Dom and eat caviar than fly Jetstar and buy a pillow.
8. Attempt to have confidence in Qantas. if you don't, how do expect the public and employees to have confidence in Qantas
9. Operate according to a triple bottom line of reporting (so addressing the economic and social impacts of its operations) where the company has to take into account the social impacts of off-shoring on both staff and the public in its strategies, instead of just focusing on profits for higher bonuses for management.
10. More transparency, the shareholders no longer know what direction the business is taking.
Just to name a few.
I guess if it gets to hard you could always sell everything and just become a travel agency.
An Australian Business, Australian Aircraft, Australian staff based in Australia, on Singapore/New zealand contracts?????? Where will it all end?
On top of that AJ then expects to lobby the same government for protection.
AJ's QF master plan;
1. Cut costs
2. Lobby the government
3. Offshore the business
4. Whinge and blame everyone else
5. Cut more costs
Not exactly a sustainable business plan for the future is it AJ? Wouldn't the costs of damage to the brand far outweigh any gains from the cost cutting?
How about;
1. Engage and work with your employees which in return will allow you to create a more efficient workplace.
QF used to have very loyal employees until you and your mentor destroyed that goodwill.
Maybe have a read of Bransons book for some ideas, I'm sure JB can lend you a copy.
2. Expand the premium business and make the wealthy traveler feel important to the airline again. Concentrate Jetstar where it is most effective, capping the expansion of low cost carriers in Australia. Low cost operations are not conducive to longhaul routes.
3. Buy the right equipment for the Airline.
4. Lead by example, if you and your executives show restraint, maybe your employees will.
5. Be creative and open new routes.
6. Spend money on better quality inflight entertainment systems and overall product. Cut ridiculous expenditure, axe these C grade celebs on airshows.
7. Expand. There is a lot of wealth coming out of China, India and Russia. They probably would however prefer to drink Dom and eat caviar than fly Jetstar and buy a pillow.
8. Attempt to have confidence in Qantas. if you don't, how do expect the public and employees to have confidence in Qantas
9. Operate according to a triple bottom line of reporting (so addressing the economic and social impacts of its operations) where the company has to take into account the social impacts of off-shoring on both staff and the public in its strategies, instead of just focusing on profits for higher bonuses for management.
10. More transparency, the shareholders no longer know what direction the business is taking.
Just to name a few.
I guess if it gets to hard you could always sell everything and just become a travel agency.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The picture tells the story
Love your work Steve. You have an amazing abilty to keep it simple and get to the heart of the issue. How much longer can the QF Board ignore the truth!!! AJ and BB look second rate compared to JB. 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost a 30% drop in share value in the last 6 months!!!
Rumour is that Joyce and Buchanan are out and about looking for the smokin' hole that caused it.
Talk about not being able to see the wood for the trees!!
Surely Clifford is not just sitting back and watching!!! ....actually maybe he is!
Rumour is that Joyce and Buchanan are out and about looking for the smokin' hole that caused it.
Talk about not being able to see the wood for the trees!!
Surely Clifford is not just sitting back and watching!!! ....actually maybe he is!
Last edited by The Kelpie; 22nd Mar 2011 at 21:37.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety is our priority- Alan Joyce 25/2/11
Surely if you deal with a problem once you have been sprung it is 'reactive' and not 'proactive' which implies some forward thinking.
Wonder whether CASA are satisfied with the procedures in place or whether it is good enough for then just to sit on a file in Aviation House?
'Heavy' plane a risk: probe
Andrew Heasley March 23, 2011
AN OVERLOADED Qantas Airbus A330 flying from Sydney to Hong Kong was a safety risk, air investigators have found.
A breakdown in the flow of paperwork controlling freight pallets led to the aircraft being overloaded, exceeding its maximum take-off weight by almost a tonne.
Pilots had configured its flight computers for take-off based on the wrong data about weight and centre of gravity, which ''had the potential to affect the safety of flight'', Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators found.
And a delay in notifying the error resulted in the A330 flying 10 more times before maintenance checks for any damage were made. The delay ''presented a risk to the ongoing airworthiness of the aircraft'', investigators said.
ATSB also found 28 freight load control incidents at Qantas in the 2˝ years to August, the most recent on July 8.
The investigation found Qantas had not reviewed its Sydney freight-loading centre for quality assurance in the 22 months before the March 6, 2009, incident.
Reviews were supposed to be carried out by senior Qantas management every six months. The last review was in May 2007, investigators found.
''The investigation could not discount that, had those quality assurance reviews been carried out, this occurrence might have been avoided,'' they said.
No damage was found to the A330, and Qantas has since made changes to the way it loads and checks freight on to aircraft, reports incidents and has revamped its staff training, ATSB said.
Qantas said yesterday: ''As acknowledged in the report, [we] proactively adopted a range of measures to address the issues behind the incident.''
■Up to 9000 Qantas workers are ready to strike if the airline fails to guarantee job security.
Transport Workers' Union national secretary Tony Sheldon said employees including refuellers, caterers, cleaners, baggage and transport staff would take industrial action if Qantas sent more jobs overseas and put the public at risk.
Andrew Heasley March 23, 2011
AN OVERLOADED Qantas Airbus A330 flying from Sydney to Hong Kong was a safety risk, air investigators have found.
A breakdown in the flow of paperwork controlling freight pallets led to the aircraft being overloaded, exceeding its maximum take-off weight by almost a tonne.
Pilots had configured its flight computers for take-off based on the wrong data about weight and centre of gravity, which ''had the potential to affect the safety of flight'', Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators found.
And a delay in notifying the error resulted in the A330 flying 10 more times before maintenance checks for any damage were made. The delay ''presented a risk to the ongoing airworthiness of the aircraft'', investigators said.
ATSB also found 28 freight load control incidents at Qantas in the 2˝ years to August, the most recent on July 8.
The investigation found Qantas had not reviewed its Sydney freight-loading centre for quality assurance in the 22 months before the March 6, 2009, incident.
Reviews were supposed to be carried out by senior Qantas management every six months. The last review was in May 2007, investigators found.
''The investigation could not discount that, had those quality assurance reviews been carried out, this occurrence might have been avoided,'' they said.
No damage was found to the A330, and Qantas has since made changes to the way it loads and checks freight on to aircraft, reports incidents and has revamped its staff training, ATSB said.
Qantas said yesterday: ''As acknowledged in the report, [we] proactively adopted a range of measures to address the issues behind the incident.''
■Up to 9000 Qantas workers are ready to strike if the airline fails to guarantee job security.
Transport Workers' Union national secretary Tony Sheldon said employees including refuellers, caterers, cleaners, baggage and transport staff would take industrial action if Qantas sent more jobs overseas and put the public at risk.
Wonder whether CASA are satisfied with the procedures in place or whether it is good enough for then just to sit on a file in Aviation House?
Last edited by The Kelpie; 22nd Mar 2011 at 21:31.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What interest would an Irishman have in keeping an Australian brand Australian? He's pursuing his own future. It's a little xenophobic but I wonder why we can't find more home grown talent to run our big airlines, big banks and big mines.