Dick Smith "QF move to Asia".
It's funny that the CEO's don't get outsourced as well (Ireland doesn't count). There are plenty of very well-educated Asians who would do the same job cheaper and probably better.
Dick, I applaud your stance on Australia's population, but in aviation matters...
Edited to say that I agree with t cas's concern regarding the national security implications of 'offshoring' the flag carrier.
Dick, I applaud your stance on Australia's population, but in aviation matters...
Edited to say that I agree with t cas's concern regarding the national security implications of 'offshoring' the flag carrier.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 17th Jul 2011 at 08:23.
The Carbon Tax will be a significant shackle to the competitive aspects of any of our airlines in Australia.
It seems punitive to be taxing what is in essence a very efficient means of mass transport that is continually striving for fuel burn (read Carbon) reduction as a part of its business strategy.
Air transport in this country is close to an essential service and has a driving effect on the economy. Continuity of air transport is critical, the Ansett collapse had a significant impact, (Look at the '89 dispute and the reaction of the Government of the day, providing the RAAF and any manner of overseas charter operator), and more recently the Tiger hiatus.
The manufacturers of the high capacity jet transports, turboprops and ATC and airport systems and support (despite some operational frustrations, which are mainly political), are all geared towards efficiency and therefore a reduction in the carbon footprint.
The industry has been robust, (look at the floods, severe weather, volcanic ash, GFC etc), and has maintained an operational safety record the envy of the world.
We live in a country that people want to visit! We live in a country with resources that the world needs and we can also provide food for many.
The argument regarding wages is somewhat mute when considering that the wage growth in the industry did not keep up with other industries. This can be attributed to many aspects of the aviation industry having the opportunity to actually regress wages due to new business models. Productivity for the current wages is far higher than that of the past.
This is a great industry, like others in Australia, that have built this nation and continue to provide a future service to the economy and the people. The skills, the employment, the pride and most important, the future of our children.
With all of this in our hands, our government decides that we should lead the world and clean up the atmosphere. This will kill Australia as we know it. It will cost families, it will cost business, it will cost our ability to defend our nation as we become less and less able to afford to do things for ourselves.
I say bring back as much as we can like steel manufacturing, nuclear power expertise, solar panel production, glass production, cars, trucks, ships you name it, we should be doing it.
To make my point consider this:
If a major supermarket chain can import bread dough from the USA, then bake it in the store and sell it for a DOLLAR! Who will be baking bread for us in 10 years time. How carbon friendly is it to be shipping bread dough across the oceans when we grow very good wheat here? Who will can our fruit when it is cheaper to ship it in from thailand because our farmers have gone out of business because they are carbon taxed for providing raw produce here in our own country for our own consumption?
I am very tired of hearing the glass half empty vitriol. We can have very competitive operations based here in Australia. We are innovative. We are hard working. We love a challenge and at the end of the day, we love to have a beer and chew the fat!
Keep QANTAS here, Keep all of our industry here. Get rid of our incompetent leaders and their self serving, idealistic environmental hero agendas!
I am off to have an Australian Beer, or maybe even a local red!!! It will be assisting some very palatable local produce that I will be having for dinner.
It seems punitive to be taxing what is in essence a very efficient means of mass transport that is continually striving for fuel burn (read Carbon) reduction as a part of its business strategy.
Air transport in this country is close to an essential service and has a driving effect on the economy. Continuity of air transport is critical, the Ansett collapse had a significant impact, (Look at the '89 dispute and the reaction of the Government of the day, providing the RAAF and any manner of overseas charter operator), and more recently the Tiger hiatus.
The manufacturers of the high capacity jet transports, turboprops and ATC and airport systems and support (despite some operational frustrations, which are mainly political), are all geared towards efficiency and therefore a reduction in the carbon footprint.
The industry has been robust, (look at the floods, severe weather, volcanic ash, GFC etc), and has maintained an operational safety record the envy of the world.
We live in a country that people want to visit! We live in a country with resources that the world needs and we can also provide food for many.
The argument regarding wages is somewhat mute when considering that the wage growth in the industry did not keep up with other industries. This can be attributed to many aspects of the aviation industry having the opportunity to actually regress wages due to new business models. Productivity for the current wages is far higher than that of the past.
This is a great industry, like others in Australia, that have built this nation and continue to provide a future service to the economy and the people. The skills, the employment, the pride and most important, the future of our children.
With all of this in our hands, our government decides that we should lead the world and clean up the atmosphere. This will kill Australia as we know it. It will cost families, it will cost business, it will cost our ability to defend our nation as we become less and less able to afford to do things for ourselves.
I say bring back as much as we can like steel manufacturing, nuclear power expertise, solar panel production, glass production, cars, trucks, ships you name it, we should be doing it.
To make my point consider this:
If a major supermarket chain can import bread dough from the USA, then bake it in the store and sell it for a DOLLAR! Who will be baking bread for us in 10 years time. How carbon friendly is it to be shipping bread dough across the oceans when we grow very good wheat here? Who will can our fruit when it is cheaper to ship it in from thailand because our farmers have gone out of business because they are carbon taxed for providing raw produce here in our own country for our own consumption?
I am very tired of hearing the glass half empty vitriol. We can have very competitive operations based here in Australia. We are innovative. We are hard working. We love a challenge and at the end of the day, we love to have a beer and chew the fat!
Keep QANTAS here, Keep all of our industry here. Get rid of our incompetent leaders and their self serving, idealistic environmental hero agendas!
I am off to have an Australian Beer, or maybe even a local red!!! It will be assisting some very palatable local produce that I will be having for dinner.
Dick, you are correct in a sense ... that sense is that IF QANTAS wants to compete in a low cost environment, then it has to lower overheads.
But myself, and others, have suggested that the best bet for QANTAS to live a long and happy life is NOT to foolishly compete with the LCCs ... instead, maintain(create?) a premium brand, with a premium product, with premium maintenance and equipment, going to premium ports, at a premium fare.
The only question is ... is there still a market for a premium product?
But myself, and others, have suggested that the best bet for QANTAS to live a long and happy life is NOT to foolishly compete with the LCCs ... instead, maintain(create?) a premium brand, with a premium product, with premium maintenance and equipment, going to premium ports, at a premium fare.
The only question is ... is there still a market for a premium product?
The only question is ... is there still a market for a premium product?
1. High level of service
2. Reliability
2. Fast service to ultimate destination
So I live in SYD and want to travel to Moscow, Athens, Zurich, Rome Madrid, Glascow or anothr 50 airports that QF does not have a direct connection to
Pax are fed up with being herded through LHR and LAX. QF has lost its premium market to other airlines who can offer a one stop connection to many destinations, cheaper and faster, with newer planes and no change in airlines
Random example one way in Aug 2011 SYD-MAN from expedia
AU$1,535.51 inclusive of all taxes and fees
21:10 Depart Sydney (SYD)
Arrive Manchester (MAN) 12:25 +1 day
Duration: 24hr 15mn Emirates 413 / 17
AU$1,775.27 inclusive of all taxes and fees
15:15 Depart Sydney (SYD)
Arrive Manchester (MAN) 07:30 +1 day Thu 18-Aug
Duration: 25hr 15mn Etihad Airways 6451 / 15
Connect in Abu Dhabi
AU$1,985.87 inclusive of all taxes and fees
16:55 Depart Sydney (SYD)
Arrive Manchester (MAN) 11:25 +1 day
Duration: 27hr 30mn Qantas Airways 1 British Airways 2906
Connect in London 2 stops
AND I ad the above are premium airlines, not low cost carriers.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.45 hours difference between Etihad and Qantas.
That's not a considerable difference.
Price - well that's subjective across many fronts.
And extra stop - yes. Is that the end of the world - no.
You'll always have premium loyalty that will stick with QF LH for the simple fact they're QF SH premium customers and loyalty programs e.g. QF FF carry a lot of weight.
Or as Barry Jackson will say - "Australians want Australian pilots flying Qantas aircraft"
That's not a considerable difference.
Price - well that's subjective across many fronts.
And extra stop - yes. Is that the end of the world - no.
You'll always have premium loyalty that will stick with QF LH for the simple fact they're QF SH premium customers and loyalty programs e.g. QF FF carry a lot of weight.
Or as Barry Jackson will say - "Australians want Australian pilots flying Qantas aircraft"
Folks,
I just love the latest reported results from Etihad??
They have extended the idea of profit before EBITD ( Earnings before Interest, Tax and Depreciation) to a new EBITDR ( all the others plus rentals --- ie; lease costs)
As the commentator in the SMH remarked, their "profit" results would be even more impressive if it was EBITDRFL ( ie; all the others plus fuel and labor) , that is earnings before any expenses.
This is the cloud cuckoo land economics that even SQ can't compete against (look at their latest results).
The sad thing about all this is that pilot costs are not the real issue for QF, but management has made it the issue, because "pilot bashing", like "doctor or lawyer bashing" is always good politics ---- except if your are a passenger who has just got off QF 32 -- no complaints there that Discrepancy or Dave Evans were overpaid ---
No demand from those passengers for the alleged savings arising from only hiring short term contract pilots whose only qualifications are a valid ICAO license and to be warm and walking.
Dick's not quite right about engineering labor costs, have a look at how competitive NZ is ---- the overall very negative regulatory framework in Australia (not just CASA) makes us increasingly uncompetitive.
Tootle pip!!
I just love the latest reported results from Etihad??
They have extended the idea of profit before EBITD ( Earnings before Interest, Tax and Depreciation) to a new EBITDR ( all the others plus rentals --- ie; lease costs)
As the commentator in the SMH remarked, their "profit" results would be even more impressive if it was EBITDRFL ( ie; all the others plus fuel and labor) , that is earnings before any expenses.
This is the cloud cuckoo land economics that even SQ can't compete against (look at their latest results).
The sad thing about all this is that pilot costs are not the real issue for QF, but management has made it the issue, because "pilot bashing", like "doctor or lawyer bashing" is always good politics ---- except if your are a passenger who has just got off QF 32 -- no complaints there that Discrepancy or Dave Evans were overpaid ---
No demand from those passengers for the alleged savings arising from only hiring short term contract pilots whose only qualifications are a valid ICAO license and to be warm and walking.
Dick's not quite right about engineering labor costs, have a look at how competitive NZ is ---- the overall very negative regulatory framework in Australia (not just CASA) makes us increasingly uncompetitive.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or as Barry Jackson will say - "Australians want Australian pilots flying Qantas aircraft" 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Marion, South Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1a sound asleep
I recently flew MEL-AUH-DUB and return with Etihad, just to avoid at all costs, going anywhere near Heathrow.
What interested me was that Etihad, inbound into AUH on the the way to DUB, was running behind time (about 2 hours) so Cabin Staff notified all passengers that were flying from AUH to Moscow, Athens, Milan, etc that they will be given priorty on landing so they could get their ongoing flights, some of which were being held to meet this incoming aircraft.
Mike
I recently flew MEL-AUH-DUB and return with Etihad, just to avoid at all costs, going anywhere near Heathrow.
What interested me was that Etihad, inbound into AUH on the the way to DUB, was running behind time (about 2 hours) so Cabin Staff notified all passengers that were flying from AUH to Moscow, Athens, Milan, etc that they will be given priorty on landing so they could get their ongoing flights, some of which were being held to meet this incoming aircraft.
Mike
1a sound asleep
I recently flew MEL-AUH-DUB and return with Etihad, just to avoid at all costs, going anywhere near Heathrow.
What interested me was that Etihad, inbound into AUH on the the way to DUB, was running behind time (about 2 hours) so Cabin Staff notified all passengers that were flying from AUH to Moscow, Athens, Milan, etc that they will be given priorty on landing so they could get their ongoing flights, some of which were being held to meet this incoming aircraft.
Mike
I recently flew MEL-AUH-DUB and return with Etihad, just to avoid at all costs, going anywhere near Heathrow.
What interested me was that Etihad, inbound into AUH on the the way to DUB, was running behind time (about 2 hours) so Cabin Staff notified all passengers that were flying from AUH to Moscow, Athens, Milan, etc that they will be given priorty on landing so they could get their ongoing flights, some of which were being held to meet this incoming aircraft.
Mike
Now if the QF plan is the emmulate the the type of Etihad/Emirates service by utilising a hub in China then just maybe we should be open to AJ's concept (I still acknowledge he comes across as a creepy and untrustworthy little sneak).
WE must accept that the old kangaroo route is on its deathbed. Change has to happen - QF is getting eaten alive by these other carriers
Porch Monkey - Re your post #21
Unfortunately I can’t help – I know nothing about the Qantas balance sheet, I don’t have any shares in Qantas and I don’t have any involvement in Qantas in any way.
What I am saying is just plain common sense. I will say it again – if Qantas has to compete on routes from Australia to London with airlines that have far lower costs but which are, in the public’s mind, just as safe, then Qantas will have to lower its costs to compete.
Even if, as you claim, it is subsidising Jetstar from Qantas mainline, it still does not solve the basic problem, i.e. that the Australian Government, supported by the Australian voter, has decided we should have an open skies policy with countries with far lower costs than ours.
This means that we either match the costs or we convince the public to pay higher prices on our airline or we go broke. Surely you can see this.
I can’t see what it has to do with the personalities involved. It is just basic economics. Anyone who runs a small business knows that you have to be able to compete on price, otherwise you don’t stay in business.
It’s the same with Qantas – it will just take a bit longer for a reality to be forced on everyone involved.
Unfortunately I can’t help – I know nothing about the Qantas balance sheet, I don’t have any shares in Qantas and I don’t have any involvement in Qantas in any way.
What I am saying is just plain common sense. I will say it again – if Qantas has to compete on routes from Australia to London with airlines that have far lower costs but which are, in the public’s mind, just as safe, then Qantas will have to lower its costs to compete.
Even if, as you claim, it is subsidising Jetstar from Qantas mainline, it still does not solve the basic problem, i.e. that the Australian Government, supported by the Australian voter, has decided we should have an open skies policy with countries with far lower costs than ours.
This means that we either match the costs or we convince the public to pay higher prices on our airline or we go broke. Surely you can see this.
I can’t see what it has to do with the personalities involved. It is just basic economics. Anyone who runs a small business knows that you have to be able to compete on price, otherwise you don’t stay in business.
It’s the same with Qantas – it will just take a bit longer for a reality to be forced on everyone involved.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Anyone who runs a small business knows that you have to be able to compete on price, otherwise you don’t stay in business.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I've a feeling that porch monkey's point is this: Qantas' balance sheet is being fraudulently altered to support exactly your argument. They are saying that Qantas can't compete and that Jetstar is holding up the operation.
Most of us within the Qantas group will suggest that the opposite is true. Qantas is doing very nicely thank you - international included - and if it weren't for the parasitic subsidiary, would be doing even better.
The main thrust of the argument is this - Qantas CAN compete, even with current staff salaries. The way it can do this is by increasing productivity (YES - we can give and make allowances and do things better - of this there is no dispute), engaging staff (something that does not fit into current executives agenda) and developing the product (it's been woeful for years - again a total management failure).
Therein lies the problem. Qantas used to be viewed as the safest airline, and patriotic Australians were so happy to see a red rat to take them home. Greedy management have mismanaged the product so badly that this is not as valuable a marketing tool as it once was.
Qantas IS able to compete without moving to Asia. It simply needs the direction and the leadership. At the moment, the people running the company border on criminal, and in some case may well have crossed that line.
So what do we do? Reward incompetant management and say "yes it's ok - you move jobs overseas, lets not worry about the consequences to Australia"?
Or do we stand up as a nation - rather like we are currently saying to Ms Gillard re carbon tax, and do we do the right thing, and say to greedy executives who wish to destroy our way of life in favour of theirs "No - we are not going to let you!"
Which is why I'm surprised and disapointed at your point of view. You have never shyed away from doing the right thing before - even if others disagreed. We must do the right thing now - we must say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH". Stop this before we have NO country left!
So you lobby the Government, Dick, and you'll have lots of support on this forum, as well as in the public. But I'd rather see the ship go down than lose our jobs to Asia. Whether you fight with us or not - have no doubt, we will fight.
Most of us within the Qantas group will suggest that the opposite is true. Qantas is doing very nicely thank you - international included - and if it weren't for the parasitic subsidiary, would be doing even better.
The main thrust of the argument is this - Qantas CAN compete, even with current staff salaries. The way it can do this is by increasing productivity (YES - we can give and make allowances and do things better - of this there is no dispute), engaging staff (something that does not fit into current executives agenda) and developing the product (it's been woeful for years - again a total management failure).
if Qantas has to compete on routes from Australia to London with airlines that have far lower costs but which are, in the public’s mind, just as safe, then Qantas will have to lower its costs to compete.
Qantas IS able to compete without moving to Asia. It simply needs the direction and the leadership. At the moment, the people running the company border on criminal, and in some case may well have crossed that line.
So what do we do? Reward incompetant management and say "yes it's ok - you move jobs overseas, lets not worry about the consequences to Australia"?
Or do we stand up as a nation - rather like we are currently saying to Ms Gillard re carbon tax, and do we do the right thing, and say to greedy executives who wish to destroy our way of life in favour of theirs "No - we are not going to let you!"
Which is why I'm surprised and disapointed at your point of view. You have never shyed away from doing the right thing before - even if others disagreed. We must do the right thing now - we must say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH". Stop this before we have NO country left!
So you lobby the Government, Dick, and you'll have lots of support on this forum, as well as in the public. But I'd rather see the ship go down than lose our jobs to Asia. Whether you fight with us or not - have no doubt, we will fight.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To some extent i agree with Mr Smith, costs have to be managed if Qantas is to remain profitable but it does not automatically follow that Qantas has to stop employing Australians and relocate to Asia, what if the problem was in poor management, incorrect selection of Aircraft and lack of forward planning?
Could Qantas become more efficient and remain Australian, employing Australian trained Pilots and Engineers, with better management?
If after getting the right aircraft for the right routes with an engaged Australian staff, and separating the operating costs of Jetstar and Qantas, things are still not looking good then maybe look to plan B.
Could Qantas become more efficient and remain Australian, employing Australian trained Pilots and Engineers, with better management?
If after getting the right aircraft for the right routes with an engaged Australian staff, and separating the operating costs of Jetstar and Qantas, things are still not looking good then maybe look to plan B.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least I am prepared to stand up for Australians, Australian businesses and Australian pilots and engineers.
What I am saying is just plain common sense. I will say it again – if Qantas has to compete on routes from Australia to London with airlines that have far lower costs but which are, in the public’s mind, just as safe, then Qantas will have to lower its costs to compete.
Anyone who runs a small business knows that you have to be able to compete on price, otherwise you don’t stay in business.
I know nothing about the Qantas balance sheet, I don’t have any shares in Qantas and I don’t have any involvement in Qantas in any way.
He makes me laugh a lot!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who runs a small business knows that you have to be able to compete on price, otherwise you don’t stay in business.
Other airlines can provide special meals (my personal soapbox, but many other people have strange eating habits, are nervous flyers etc etc) and staff that seem happy to be there. You don't necessarily need a cabin full of size six hottie FAs, because half the population doesn't give a toss about that. It's about staff who communicate effectively and have a pleasant manner. By and large Virgin manage this with variously sized Australians so it's not just a matter of wheeling out the babes. Rightly or wrongly Qantas has fared poorly in this area and I believe a lot of that is due to the appalling way they treat their staff. I'm not surprised there's a whole aircraft full of grumpy people when they're continually insulted by their own management, both in the press and in private.
There are plenty of small local restaurants paying their staff a pittance but they treat them well and it shows in their performance. Same in the entertainment industry, which has even worse pay and conditions than GA, but people love working in it and are devoted to the service, ie keeping the punters happy. Service may not be the whole problem but it's something the management group just seem to ignore...
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't necessarily need a cabin full of size six hottie FAs,
because half the population doesn't give a toss about that.
because half the population doesn't give a toss about that.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't necessarily need a cabin full of size six hottie FAs, because half the population doesn't give a toss about that.
