Why does Joyce hate Qantas so much?
Clipped, I've worked in management consulting, a few senior management positions in various industries, got an MBA along the way.
I think I've heard most of the jargon at one time or another, or even peddled some of it myself. It's not hard to string it all together and convince yourself and the gullible that you have invented a "New Management Paradigm" that is miraculously going to "transform" your business.
The reality is that the only way to build a business is through investment, including investment in people and their training and mentoring and the deliberate fostering and accumulation of experience. There is mounting evidence that experts are made, not born. Leaders also have to lead by example, if they can't or don't then your business will wither and die.
I learned a huge lesson at Ansett many years ago although I didn't understand it till years later, and it still isn't "discovered" and written up in the Harvard Business review. I was watching an engine change on a B737 because I had nothing better to do. The leading hand was a bearded old bloke, probably a year or Two from retirement. He was standing back apparently gas bagging with a Fifty something who was doing paperwork, collecting tags, etc., Then there was a Thirty something reading some technical manual, SB or whatever and fiddling with parts and part numbers, then there were a couple of Twenty somethings actually doing the change and handing tools to a couple of apprentices who were working their backsides off with cone bolts, etc. ..Then the old bastard who was running the team pointed at one of the apprentices and said something to the Fifty year old, who went over and spoke to the kid about what he was doing and made him do it differently.
I suddenly realised that what I was watching was a hierarchy of capability and experience, and that each age group perfectly complemented each other and compensated for what they could and couldn't do. Youth and enthusiasm at one end with not much brainpower, superb technical competence in the middle with some experience and rat like cunning people skills and experience at the top with probably not that much physical capacity left. Everything matched.
I later put it all together and discovered that every one of the problem businesses I have come across had roughly similar age groups in it - there was no variation. I worked out that twenty somethings make one type of business error, Thirty somethings make other types of mistakes, Sixty year olds make others, in other words, each age group has its own strengths and weaknesses, and if you don't balance that out by having an age spread in the workforce you are very vulnerable.
Look at what happened to OneTel. Was there anyone in that company, or its Board, over the age of Forty? I don't think so. Watch what happens to Google in the next few years. Maybe all I've done is rediscovered that you can't put an old head on young shoulders.
When I see the way idiots deliberately castrate companies and doom them by sacking older workers I want to be sick, because I know what will happen to the company sooner or later as a result. I'll bet there were blokes working in QF Engine overhaul who would have spotted that Trent problem, maybe even known that oil leaks and offset counterbores were always an issue with that design....but they were probably made redundant years ago. That has happened with virtually every company I know that "downsized" and outsourced. The wrong people are let go.
Anyway, I'm rambling, its 5.54 am and time to take Dog for her morning walk and a cup of coffee.
I think I've heard most of the jargon at one time or another, or even peddled some of it myself. It's not hard to string it all together and convince yourself and the gullible that you have invented a "New Management Paradigm" that is miraculously going to "transform" your business.
The reality is that the only way to build a business is through investment, including investment in people and their training and mentoring and the deliberate fostering and accumulation of experience. There is mounting evidence that experts are made, not born. Leaders also have to lead by example, if they can't or don't then your business will wither and die.
I learned a huge lesson at Ansett many years ago although I didn't understand it till years later, and it still isn't "discovered" and written up in the Harvard Business review. I was watching an engine change on a B737 because I had nothing better to do. The leading hand was a bearded old bloke, probably a year or Two from retirement. He was standing back apparently gas bagging with a Fifty something who was doing paperwork, collecting tags, etc., Then there was a Thirty something reading some technical manual, SB or whatever and fiddling with parts and part numbers, then there were a couple of Twenty somethings actually doing the change and handing tools to a couple of apprentices who were working their backsides off with cone bolts, etc. ..Then the old bastard who was running the team pointed at one of the apprentices and said something to the Fifty year old, who went over and spoke to the kid about what he was doing and made him do it differently.
I suddenly realised that what I was watching was a hierarchy of capability and experience, and that each age group perfectly complemented each other and compensated for what they could and couldn't do. Youth and enthusiasm at one end with not much brainpower, superb technical competence in the middle with some experience and rat like cunning people skills and experience at the top with probably not that much physical capacity left. Everything matched.
I later put it all together and discovered that every one of the problem businesses I have come across had roughly similar age groups in it - there was no variation. I worked out that twenty somethings make one type of business error, Thirty somethings make other types of mistakes, Sixty year olds make others, in other words, each age group has its own strengths and weaknesses, and if you don't balance that out by having an age spread in the workforce you are very vulnerable.
Look at what happened to OneTel. Was there anyone in that company, or its Board, over the age of Forty? I don't think so. Watch what happens to Google in the next few years. Maybe all I've done is rediscovered that you can't put an old head on young shoulders.
When I see the way idiots deliberately castrate companies and doom them by sacking older workers I want to be sick, because I know what will happen to the company sooner or later as a result. I'll bet there were blokes working in QF Engine overhaul who would have spotted that Trent problem, maybe even known that oil leaks and offset counterbores were always an issue with that design....but they were probably made redundant years ago. That has happened with virtually every company I know that "downsized" and outsourced. The wrong people are let go.
Anyway, I'm rambling, its 5.54 am and time to take Dog for her morning walk and a cup of coffee.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened to Ken ?
Surely someone who was defending the QF Executive so vigourously could come up with some points on what exactly they have done to better the place !
Perhaps he has his mouth full so to speak !
Surely someone who was defending the QF Executive so vigourously could come up with some points on what exactly they have done to better the place !
Perhaps he has his mouth full so to speak !
Great insight Sunfish. I think you have put into simple words something that is often unnoticed. Companies fail to see they have to plan on replacing those "expensive" and "highly licenced" older LAMES whilst they are still in their employment. In todays commercial environment, these same older LAMES are seen as a cost, not a benefit. A"highly licenced" LAME is often replaced with a single licence ex apprentice (only when the older LAME is "off the books), with an overall loss of both nett licences and technical expertice in the company. Accountants are then heard counting their percieved savings. The task of mentoring falls to the next level of age group who themselves are sometimes not that much older than the ex appentice. Everyone involved looses (except the older retired LAME).
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Terra firma
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely someone who was defending the QF Executive so vigourously could come up with some points on what exactly they have done to better the place !
It is a bit old but a good warning of things to come:
Government Safety Audit gives Qantas 15 safety correction notices
From: The Australian (more at: The Australian | The Australian Homepage | TheAustralian) Posted: June 6, 2009
A review of the way Qantas maintains individual aircraft has resulted in about 15 requests for corrective action
from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. CASA undertook the "tail audit" in the wake of a series of incidents
that included a mid-air oxygen bottle explosion that blew a hole in the side of jumbo jet and a computer glitch
that sent an Airbus jet on wild ride and prompted an embarrassing maintenance review that last year that
found Qantas was not meeting its own performance benchmarks. CASA deputy chief executive operations
Mick Quinn told a Senate hearing last week that "During this process we identified a number of areas we
believed required some attention and we have issued approximately 15 -- I think 13 to date on a 737 and 767
-- requests for corrective action." Mr. Quinn said he could not comment on how many requests for corrective
action had been issued on the 747 because it was incomplete.
From: The Australian (more at: The Australian | The Australian Homepage | TheAustralian) Posted: June 6, 2009
A review of the way Qantas maintains individual aircraft has resulted in about 15 requests for corrective action
from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. CASA undertook the "tail audit" in the wake of a series of incidents
that included a mid-air oxygen bottle explosion that blew a hole in the side of jumbo jet and a computer glitch
that sent an Airbus jet on wild ride and prompted an embarrassing maintenance review that last year that
found Qantas was not meeting its own performance benchmarks. CASA deputy chief executive operations
Mick Quinn told a Senate hearing last week that "During this process we identified a number of areas we
believed required some attention and we have issued approximately 15 -- I think 13 to date on a 737 and 767
-- requests for corrective action." Mr. Quinn said he could not comment on how many requests for corrective
action had been issued on the 747 because it was incomplete.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Marion, South Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
Your comments and observations are very true.
I was a member of the Commonwealth APS and during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the 'management' of the APS purged all the lower ranks of the experienced Public Servants through 'voluntary redundancy' by offering packages to leave the service.
On one occasion, I witnessed the equivalent of over "1000 man-years of rat cunning labour force program administration" being wiped from the APS books.
In my view, the APS has never ecovered from this 'purging' that has occured.
All the technical experts that were in Transport (air, land and sea) were terminated.
Mike
Your comments and observations are very true.
I was a member of the Commonwealth APS and during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the 'management' of the APS purged all the lower ranks of the experienced Public Servants through 'voluntary redundancy' by offering packages to leave the service.
On one occasion, I witnessed the equivalent of over "1000 man-years of rat cunning labour force program administration" being wiped from the APS books.
In my view, the APS has never ecovered from this 'purging' that has occured.
All the technical experts that were in Transport (air, land and sea) were terminated.
Mike
Last edited by mmciau; 11th Dec 2010 at 04:10.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, you are correct. I suspect thatif you published your methodology it would not make its way to the required reading list at business school, not trendy or "funky" enough. But it is what we call on the hangar floor as "common dog f@#k" however common sense is not all that common any more.
If you are a student of history and the ADF in particular there is a recuring theme in the Australian Army in all theatres of war in that they have always seemed to be able to find the "right bloke at the right time". I believe the philosophy in the Army was quite simple, it was not about searching out the right people, it was all about keeping the "$hit out", if that makes any sense.
If you are a student of history and the ADF in particular there is a recuring theme in the Australian Army in all theatres of war in that they have always seemed to be able to find the "right bloke at the right time". I believe the philosophy in the Army was quite simple, it was not about searching out the right people, it was all about keeping the "$hit out", if that makes any sense.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish is correct and it's good practice for competent change managers to identify core skills when cutting costs. It works very well with the change managers who know what they are doing and have the experience with the organization. When you bring on a "professional" bookread manager with a shiny MBA and a gold tooth, who has read a few of the latest change management books in which it all sounds so easy to start by slashing 30%, then unless it's done correctly, you run the danger of doing just what Sunfish identifies. The good change managers are few and far between and worth every penny.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish, superb post. Right on the mark and your writings speak for itself, well done 
PittsS2A, I agree, where is Ken ? Where is that font of knowledge and well connected management associate ? Keep in mind it does take Ken a few weeks to come up with a comment that sounds authoritive or like he actually knows something about anything !!
PittsS2A, I agree, where is Ken ? Where is that font of knowledge and well connected management associate ? Keep in mind it does take Ken a few weeks to come up with a comment that sounds authoritive or like he actually knows something about anything !!
Leaders also have to lead by example, if they can't or don't then your business will wither and die.
Last edited by Shark Patrol; 11th Dec 2010 at 02:38.
Great post sunfish and equally well put shark patrol.
Sadly the entire events over the last few months have shown that the qantas board and management have no competence when it comes to rectifying a perilous situation.
Actions speak louder than words and even the words used by the chairman and ceo don't cut it.
How many times has Joyce said "safety is our top priority?" Well, how many companies in Australia that offer service to the paying customer would not have that belief?
The inaction to be upfront with the underlying issues remain, and the us versus them mentality, continues unabated, in fact sentiment probably even worsened in the last few weeks, as management continue the push to piss everyone off.
Engineers, pilots, cabincrew, all important elements to a successful out come, are at loggerheads with qantas management continually because they don't believe in their strategies and can see the airline being steered headlong into a brick wall.
One has to ask what is the purpose of the toxic relationship between unions representing loyal employees and qantas?
The notion that Qantas management are building two successful brands has been shown to be a frace in the last few months as the mangy roo struggles to stay alive. From my point, it seems the organisational changes that have taken place since the dixon era began are now bearing fruit and the fruit is rancid.
Jetstar may be successful in what it does but Qantas is suffering from severe neglect and abuse at the hand of those at the top.
Most shop front staff probably had a burning desire to work for qantas for a long time prior to joining qantas. Unfortunately that passion and belief in what qantas could and should be is not shared by those running the show.
...............................
I look forward to travelling to sydney on the 19 year old 767, to be flown to joberg in the 20 year old 747. At least it may be ontime and the state of the entertainment system will work well and accompany the extremely confortable sky bed with the impressive underlay. The food will be delightful, and i will have my choice of meals and wines and the flight attendants will have plenty of spare time on their hands to provide me with a level of customer service that I should expect when i pay to fly on the premium airline, qantas. NOT!
Sadly the entire events over the last few months have shown that the qantas board and management have no competence when it comes to rectifying a perilous situation.
Actions speak louder than words and even the words used by the chairman and ceo don't cut it.
How many times has Joyce said "safety is our top priority?" Well, how many companies in Australia that offer service to the paying customer would not have that belief?
The inaction to be upfront with the underlying issues remain, and the us versus them mentality, continues unabated, in fact sentiment probably even worsened in the last few weeks, as management continue the push to piss everyone off.
Engineers, pilots, cabincrew, all important elements to a successful out come, are at loggerheads with qantas management continually because they don't believe in their strategies and can see the airline being steered headlong into a brick wall.
One has to ask what is the purpose of the toxic relationship between unions representing loyal employees and qantas?
The notion that Qantas management are building two successful brands has been shown to be a frace in the last few months as the mangy roo struggles to stay alive. From my point, it seems the organisational changes that have taken place since the dixon era began are now bearing fruit and the fruit is rancid.
Jetstar may be successful in what it does but Qantas is suffering from severe neglect and abuse at the hand of those at the top.
Most shop front staff probably had a burning desire to work for qantas for a long time prior to joining qantas. Unfortunately that passion and belief in what qantas could and should be is not shared by those running the show.
...............................
I look forward to travelling to sydney on the 19 year old 767, to be flown to joberg in the 20 year old 747. At least it may be ontime and the state of the entertainment system will work well and accompany the extremely confortable sky bed with the impressive underlay. The food will be delightful, and i will have my choice of meals and wines and the flight attendants will have plenty of spare time on their hands to provide me with a level of customer service that I should expect when i pay to fly on the premium airline, qantas. NOT!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great post Sunfish.
I also think that the lack of respect that the worker group and management group have for each other is a huge factor in toxic workplaces. Both groups are necessary in a successful business, but when they each despise and distrust each other the battle becomes more important than achieving the business goal.
If the managers are too arrogant and distrustful to listen to the workers about training, equipment etc, they are destined to make poor decisions and lose valuable people, whether through dissatisfaction or poorly planned redundancy drives. A senior manager cannot possibly understand every piece of equipment in a company and nor is it his job to do so, so how can he make informed decisions without seeking and trusting the advice of his technical experts?
In a productive company the managers and workers don't always agree or even like each other very much, but in general both sides have faith in the other group's knowledge and their ability to keep the show on the road, and both sides trust the information given to them by the other in the endless compromise game of 'we really need this equipment', versus 'we really can't afford it this year'. Without sensible and honest discussion about how great the need is (and how low the cash is), it's inevitable that bad decisions will be made. From the outside looking in, that seems to be what's happened at Qantas, particularly with engineering matters.
I also think that the lack of respect that the worker group and management group have for each other is a huge factor in toxic workplaces. Both groups are necessary in a successful business, but when they each despise and distrust each other the battle becomes more important than achieving the business goal.
If the managers are too arrogant and distrustful to listen to the workers about training, equipment etc, they are destined to make poor decisions and lose valuable people, whether through dissatisfaction or poorly planned redundancy drives. A senior manager cannot possibly understand every piece of equipment in a company and nor is it his job to do so, so how can he make informed decisions without seeking and trusting the advice of his technical experts?
In a productive company the managers and workers don't always agree or even like each other very much, but in general both sides have faith in the other group's knowledge and their ability to keep the show on the road, and both sides trust the information given to them by the other in the endless compromise game of 'we really need this equipment', versus 'we really can't afford it this year'. Without sensible and honest discussion about how great the need is (and how low the cash is), it's inevitable that bad decisions will be made. From the outside looking in, that seems to be what's happened at Qantas, particularly with engineering matters.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe not a good example to use Google Sunfish. Google and Rackspace are like licenses to print money. Considering the normal lifespan of a tech company is something like 7 years, these guys are just going onward and upward. Experience probably doesn't matter so much in these companies as the technology is about the same age as the employees.
Lodown:
With respect Lodown, you make my point for me.......
The reason that tech companies only last Seven years or so, and then fold or get merged, often leaving investors high and dry, is precisely because they remain a monoculture of Twenty somethings or Thirty somethings, and make the business mistakes common to those age groups.
There is no reason Google shouldn't last a hundred years or more if it manages itself properly and reinvents itself at suitable intervals. For example Shell Petroleum (Royal Dutch Shell) was founded in 1907.
Business mistakes for youngsters?
- Reach exceeding grasp.
- "This boom will go on forever"
For the middle aged?
- Lets diversify!
- Lets reorganise!
For the elderly?
- We've always done it like that!
- Let's modernise by buying some young tech companies!
Maybe not a good example to use Google Sunfish. Google and Rackspace are like licenses to print money. Considering the normal lifespan of a tech company is something like 7 years, these guys are just going onward and upward. Experience probably doesn't matter so much in these companies as the technology is about the same age as the employees.
The reason that tech companies only last Seven years or so, and then fold or get merged, often leaving investors high and dry, is precisely because they remain a monoculture of Twenty somethings or Thirty somethings, and make the business mistakes common to those age groups.
There is no reason Google shouldn't last a hundred years or more if it manages itself properly and reinvents itself at suitable intervals. For example Shell Petroleum (Royal Dutch Shell) was founded in 1907.
Business mistakes for youngsters?
- Reach exceeding grasp.
- "This boom will go on forever"
For the middle aged?
- Lets diversify!
- Lets reorganise!
For the elderly?
- We've always done it like that!
- Let's modernise by buying some young tech companies!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, why should Joyce be any different to the rest of us??
Qantas managers head for the exit
Qantas managers head for the exit
The turnover in senior managers at Qantas, many of whom have 20 or 30 years of service, has intensified over the past year and is seen as a blow to its key long-haul operations.
The turnover in senior managers at Qantas, many of whom have 20 or 30 years of service, has intensified over the past year and is seen as a blow to its key long-haul operations.
His appointment comes several months after Virgin Blue poached two other Qantas executives, Will Owens and Jane McKeon, as the heads of government relations and yield management respectively.
Qantas has poached Virgin Blue's former head of government relations, Tony Wheelens. He left the airline on Friday to become a government relations manager at Qantas, reporting to Rob Wood, the head of government and international relations.
David Epstein, Qantas's chief spin doctor and government relations boss, will also leave this month after two years at the airline to take up a role as the head of public affairs at BHP Billiton.
The recent departures follow a big overhaul of Qantas's senior management six months after Alan Joyce took the reins in late 2008, including the axing of 90 senior management roles.
Mr Joyce is regarded as having a preference for changing the roles of individual managers frequently instead of clocking up years of experience in specialist positions.
''Alan is very keen on the fact that when he was at [the Irish airline] Aer Lingus he was moved through all different areas,'' one said.
But the former boss of Jetstar is also seen as being sensitive to not installing too many of his former managers at that low-cost airline in some of the top roles at its full-service parent, Qantas. My bold.
The recent departures follow a big overhaul of Qantas's senior management six months after Alan Joyce took the reins in late 2008, including the axing of 90 senior management roles.
Mr Joyce is regarded as having a preference for changing the roles of individual managers frequently instead of clocking up years of experience in specialist positions.
''Alan is very keen on the fact that when he was at [the Irish airline] Aer Lingus he was moved through all different areas,'' one said.
But the former boss of Jetstar is also seen as being sensitive to not installing too many of his former managers at that low-cost airline in some of the top roles at its full-service parent, Qantas. My bold.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have already seen
the pattern for several month. new managers moving into new areas and no f..... idea whats going on. result nothing gets done, too scared to make a decision
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Faulconbridge
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Joyce has joined the Thunderbirds
Its very interesting that most of these managers except for JB are ex Australian Airlines. If some of you may remember when QF was taken over by TN, the "tiny but perfectly formed Thunderbird" removed the vast majority of QF management at most levels and replaced them with TN people. The only one of note they didn't have the guts to remove was the Safety Manager, for obvious reasons. I suppose Joyce will replace them with ex REX people to keep up the tradition.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Sunfish.
Ask around about the crews sent o/s to to the A380 work recently. I believe that it was very close to that crew structure. Young guys doing the hard yakka, a few older guys with an older head and then the senior who ties it all together.
But when base maintenance send a crew away to change an engine it is all chiefs and no workers.
Maybe change is a good thing
Ask around about the crews sent o/s to to the A380 work recently. I believe that it was very close to that crew structure. Young guys doing the hard yakka, a few older guys with an older head and then the senior who ties it all together.
But when base maintenance send a crew away to change an engine it is all chiefs and no workers.
Maybe change is a good thing