AUGUST 24th - QANTAS
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: HKG
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane Talking reference to
Really is the elephent in the room.
That no other European/North American carrier is intending to set up a Premium Airline in Asia's backyard, begs the question - Why Not!
QF sure has a hell of a lot riding on the success of Fantasia.
the risks posed by the Asian premium carrier
That no other European/North American carrier is intending to set up a Premium Airline in Asia's backyard, begs the question - Why Not!
QF sure has a hell of a lot riding on the success of Fantasia.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: East Coast
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1994, Shareholders of Continental Airlines held their shares at $3.25.
They had been in Chapter 11 twice in the previous decade.
Gordon Bethune the then new CEO stated he figured that the share price was at rock bottom and these share holders weren't selling because they were invested and just hoping they would survive, the loss on paper was already there so why realise it?
The fact that many shareholders have held their QF shares for no reward and to see their share value trashed by the same people that are profiteering from their position by way of pay/bonus/package (call it/hide it however you please Gentlemen) shows that these share holders have a vested interest in the company. To deny their voice to be heard smacks of acts of corporate psychopaths.
A voice of no confidence is fair and warranted.
In the last ten years QF shareholders have seen the Management team lead QANTAS to a trashing of it's employees publicly, trashing of the share price, incorrect fleet investment, Take over bid debacle, Massive executive payouts and parachutes, no dividends and now Job losses on the Australian front coupled with a massive failure in employee morale. All amidst massive ongoing profits.
This must surely be an awesome case study of incompetence at an executive level that is not yet rivalled in Australia and as far as I can research the Pan-Asian area (boom-tish)
The QANTAS board and the CEO of QANTAS, Jetstar and JANZ must go. Who replaces, I don't know, but this is far from the case of better the devil you know. Geoff Dixon was the polyp, this is his cancer. Not the employees as they think. (And unfortunately some employees also think, that have allowed the age old divide and conquer strategy from executive management to steer their thoughts)
Unity in the QANTAS group is the only answer.
They had been in Chapter 11 twice in the previous decade.
Gordon Bethune the then new CEO stated he figured that the share price was at rock bottom and these share holders weren't selling because they were invested and just hoping they would survive, the loss on paper was already there so why realise it?
The fact that many shareholders have held their QF shares for no reward and to see their share value trashed by the same people that are profiteering from their position by way of pay/bonus/package (call it/hide it however you please Gentlemen) shows that these share holders have a vested interest in the company. To deny their voice to be heard smacks of acts of corporate psychopaths.
A voice of no confidence is fair and warranted.
In the last ten years QF shareholders have seen the Management team lead QANTAS to a trashing of it's employees publicly, trashing of the share price, incorrect fleet investment, Take over bid debacle, Massive executive payouts and parachutes, no dividends and now Job losses on the Australian front coupled with a massive failure in employee morale. All amidst massive ongoing profits.
This must surely be an awesome case study of incompetence at an executive level that is not yet rivalled in Australia and as far as I can research the Pan-Asian area (boom-tish)
The QANTAS board and the CEO of QANTAS, Jetstar and JANZ must go. Who replaces, I don't know, but this is far from the case of better the devil you know. Geoff Dixon was the polyp, this is his cancer. Not the employees as they think. (And unfortunately some employees also think, that have allowed the age old divide and conquer strategy from executive management to steer their thoughts)
Unity in the QANTAS group is the only answer.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's now tell the Shareholders what Needs to be done
SteaminDivet - Well said!!!
Now what can be done before it is too late??
Myself, I believe we need to start taking out regular full page newspaper ads telling these facts And... What really needs to be done to Fix this severe problem ie correct Fleet for International, keep flying the all important Routes and more destinations, and re-invest in the Premium service that the loyal passengers used to have, really do want and are prepared to pay for!!
We need to show not just this Board and CEO need to go but WHAT we, the Shareholders and Passengers, really WANT re-installed back into the Qantas that Australia did love!
(Pulling off the London route just before the Olympics??? Please!!!!, tell me there are not hidden agenda reasons for this?)
Just my opinion of course?
Now what can be done before it is too late??
Myself, I believe we need to start taking out regular full page newspaper ads telling these facts And... What really needs to be done to Fix this severe problem ie correct Fleet for International, keep flying the all important Routes and more destinations, and re-invest in the Premium service that the loyal passengers used to have, really do want and are prepared to pay for!!
We need to show not just this Board and CEO need to go but WHAT we, the Shareholders and Passengers, really WANT re-installed back into the Qantas that Australia did love!
(Pulling off the London route just before the Olympics??? Please!!!!, tell me there are not hidden agenda reasons for this?)
Just my opinion of course?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: HKG
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to The Australian Financial Review
Qantas Airways Ltd's plans to move into Asia with a new premium brand may be delayed until 2013, as the carrier remains in talks with potential partners in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur.
Qantas Airways Ltd's plans to move into Asia with a new premium brand may be delayed until 2013, as the carrier remains in talks with potential partners in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A cheap seat at the front of a 777 :-)
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and we'll be concentrating on rebuilding the Qantas brand.
Stay tuned.
Let's just hope that QF isn't a case study on corporate failure in a few years time.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a double fault for Joyce
At the end of a post in Plane Talking about Singapore Airlines, Tiger and Virgin there is this about the AFR report on Qantasia being delayed
Of parallel concern to Qantas investors are reports that its plans for an Asia based premium carrier using single aisle A320s, and a non Qantas branding in conjunction with a partners in Malaysia, Singapore or China, are running late, and might not see it able to start service until 2013.
At the moment that plan seems to be flying through treacle. Constant references by Qantas sources to the Malaysia potential have been received with disbelief among those familiar with the risks of doing business with Tony Fernandes, the founder of AirAsia, who has been far more successful with his low cost franchise than either Qantas with Jetstar or Singapore Airlines with Tiger.
The Asia delays will not reflect well on Qantas CEO Alan Joyce if the new Asia premium carrier is deferred into the second financial year reporting period from now, as he has already announced sacrificial cuts to Qantas long haul services, including half of its capacity on the kangaroo route to London, in order to rebuild the airline’s fortunes around non Qantas brands exploiting the lower labor costs of Asia.
The gap between downsizing Qantas, and invading the turf of large, powerful and supremely well connected Asian competitors is looking deeper and more treacherous the further the venture is delayed.
The Joyce plan serves existing Qantas market share of long haul routes up on a platter to its smarter and more relevant competitors. Doing so for a risky Asia venture that runs quickly into difficulties would be a double disaster for the flying kangaroo.
At the moment that plan seems to be flying through treacle. Constant references by Qantas sources to the Malaysia potential have been received with disbelief among those familiar with the risks of doing business with Tony Fernandes, the founder of AirAsia, who has been far more successful with his low cost franchise than either Qantas with Jetstar or Singapore Airlines with Tiger.
The Asia delays will not reflect well on Qantas CEO Alan Joyce if the new Asia premium carrier is deferred into the second financial year reporting period from now, as he has already announced sacrificial cuts to Qantas long haul services, including half of its capacity on the kangaroo route to London, in order to rebuild the airline’s fortunes around non Qantas brands exploiting the lower labor costs of Asia.
The gap between downsizing Qantas, and invading the turf of large, powerful and supremely well connected Asian competitors is looking deeper and more treacherous the further the venture is delayed.
The Joyce plan serves existing Qantas market share of long haul routes up on a platter to its smarter and more relevant competitors. Doing so for a risky Asia venture that runs quickly into difficulties would be a double disaster for the flying kangaroo.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mind boggles......
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly is a 'premium' carrier?
Is it to be full service economy + business, exclusively business class or what?
Sorry if I missed a press release, but there aren't a lot of actual details in any of the Qantasia hype.
Is it to be full service economy + business, exclusively business class or what?
Sorry if I missed a press release, but there aren't a lot of actual details in any of the Qantasia hype.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, kinda stupid. What they say is sleeper seats and better service than currently available. So, lemme think. Want to go from Singapore to KL.... need sleeper seat, ten minutes in the bunk plus all the grand service promised me....or Singapore SYD, oops, A320 can't even make the distance. Sorry, but this just gets more ridiculous the more one reads into this. F**ckin' joke. Only hope the fund managers, supposedly a smart buncha guys understand this, and take action prior to or on the 28th Oct....
I wonder when a bigger investor is going to call BS! On the entire Qantas strategy?
Two of the abiding principles of business (and warfare) are selection and maintenance of a single aim and concentration of force.
Qantas has spread itself very thinly - Jet Connect, Jetstar New Zealand, Jetstar Asia, Jetstar Vietnam, Jetstar Japan, Jetstar domestic, Qantas link (regional), Qantas (WA mining Charter), Qantas Domestic, Qantas International and the new alleged premium Asian venture, have I left anything out?
To support those segments we have an organisational structure with at least one, and probably Two, additional layers of management - Executive General Managers and Group General Managers.
Apart from the obvious cost of such a structure, there are penalties in terms of corporate agility. Perhaps not so obvious would be the cost penalties associated with sub optimisation as each segment manager tries to maximise their own performance and competes for Board and senior management attention, not to mention scarce corporate investment dollars.
The McKinsey boyz taught me around 1986 that such structures are recipes for disaster because ultimately it is the quality of Board decisions that counts, and it becomes impossible for Boards to quickly switch focus between the needs and strategies of the various business segments. The classic case of course was BHP - which made a disastrous purchase of Magma Copper in the USA, before the consultants were called in to chop it up into more manageable bits by selling off the steel division and hiving off BHP Oil and Gas.
To put that another way, the whole is much less than the sum of its parts. To put that yet another way; anyone who tells you that the structure allows you to "leverage corporate synergies" or equivalent management speak is talking bullshyte.
Of course there are winners in such a structure - middle management has to proliferate in order to keep the various parts of the organisation flying roughly in formation. Qantas legal and supply Departments must be a managers paradise.
For example, how many different aircraft models does the Qantas group employ? How many operations and training staff are required to cater to each? Does Qantas employ type specialists to keep track of the minutiae of getting the best out of each model and plan the maintenance and replacement strategy? Such people are the "connecting tissue" of an airline as well as the repository of corporate knowledge and experience. They are very vulnerable to cost cutters. It was the destruction of these folk at Ansett that consigned that airline to history.
The problems of such structures are also amplified if the Board has certain agendas - such as breaking unions. How is the Group going to discriminate between "good" unions and "bad" unions? How will the organisation deal with a surplus of say, pilots and engineers in one part of the business and a sudden need for the same type of people in another segment? What happens when you are bashing engineers who service the International fleet and you discover that the performance of your mining charter operations is critically dependent on the good offices of half a dozen engineers in W.A? It is often infuriating for managers and staff alike to be saddled with a company wide "corporate policy" that is totally at variance with the needs of an individual operation....then add some corporate "group think" about "legacy airlines" that creates "winners" and "losers" among the staff and watch morale implode.
Anyway, these types of organisations always run in cycles. Consultants love building them up, then coming along Ten years later and dismantling them. One day its "leveraging corporate wide economies through centralisation" then the next its "Agility through decentralized decision making".
Two of the abiding principles of business (and warfare) are selection and maintenance of a single aim and concentration of force.
Qantas has spread itself very thinly - Jet Connect, Jetstar New Zealand, Jetstar Asia, Jetstar Vietnam, Jetstar Japan, Jetstar domestic, Qantas link (regional), Qantas (WA mining Charter), Qantas Domestic, Qantas International and the new alleged premium Asian venture, have I left anything out?
To support those segments we have an organisational structure with at least one, and probably Two, additional layers of management - Executive General Managers and Group General Managers.
Apart from the obvious cost of such a structure, there are penalties in terms of corporate agility. Perhaps not so obvious would be the cost penalties associated with sub optimisation as each segment manager tries to maximise their own performance and competes for Board and senior management attention, not to mention scarce corporate investment dollars.
The McKinsey boyz taught me around 1986 that such structures are recipes for disaster because ultimately it is the quality of Board decisions that counts, and it becomes impossible for Boards to quickly switch focus between the needs and strategies of the various business segments. The classic case of course was BHP - which made a disastrous purchase of Magma Copper in the USA, before the consultants were called in to chop it up into more manageable bits by selling off the steel division and hiving off BHP Oil and Gas.
To put that another way, the whole is much less than the sum of its parts. To put that yet another way; anyone who tells you that the structure allows you to "leverage corporate synergies" or equivalent management speak is talking bullshyte.
Of course there are winners in such a structure - middle management has to proliferate in order to keep the various parts of the organisation flying roughly in formation. Qantas legal and supply Departments must be a managers paradise.
For example, how many different aircraft models does the Qantas group employ? How many operations and training staff are required to cater to each? Does Qantas employ type specialists to keep track of the minutiae of getting the best out of each model and plan the maintenance and replacement strategy? Such people are the "connecting tissue" of an airline as well as the repository of corporate knowledge and experience. They are very vulnerable to cost cutters. It was the destruction of these folk at Ansett that consigned that airline to history.
The problems of such structures are also amplified if the Board has certain agendas - such as breaking unions. How is the Group going to discriminate between "good" unions and "bad" unions? How will the organisation deal with a surplus of say, pilots and engineers in one part of the business and a sudden need for the same type of people in another segment? What happens when you are bashing engineers who service the International fleet and you discover that the performance of your mining charter operations is critically dependent on the good offices of half a dozen engineers in W.A? It is often infuriating for managers and staff alike to be saddled with a company wide "corporate policy" that is totally at variance with the needs of an individual operation....then add some corporate "group think" about "legacy airlines" that creates "winners" and "losers" among the staff and watch morale implode.
Anyway, these types of organisations always run in cycles. Consultants love building them up, then coming along Ten years later and dismantling them. One day its "leveraging corporate wide economies through centralisation" then the next its "Agility through decentralized decision making".
Last edited by Sunfish; 12th Sep 2011 at 16:13.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pretty far away
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To cut it short : you guys are toast !
Gone are the days where the Qantas name was triggering respect and envy.
None of this now and I think you guys are partly, just partly to blame for this.
You didn't see it coming, did you ? The Emirates, Etihad and the lot.
I am afraid the little Irish is goung to have you swallow his very bitter medecine and yiu won't like it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not enjoying it because Qantas has undoubtly brought a lot to airline safety.
Arrogance is what did you in. Being safe is really nice, being affordable is what people want today.
Oh yes, another thing : you economy service sucks big time and if I wasn't travelling Z I would have left long ago.
Gone are the days where the Qantas name was triggering respect and envy.
None of this now and I think you guys are partly, just partly to blame for this.
You didn't see it coming, did you ? The Emirates, Etihad and the lot.
I am afraid the little Irish is goung to have you swallow his very bitter medecine and yiu won't like it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not enjoying it because Qantas has undoubtly brought a lot to airline safety.
Arrogance is what did you in. Being safe is really nice, being affordable is what people want today.
Oh yes, another thing : you economy service sucks big time and if I wasn't travelling Z I would have left long ago.