American Airlines CEO: Qantas not a "premium" airline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holic,
Let me give you a top tip. I didn’t chose the Adam Air example, Qantas did.
“I would suggest to you that the reason the PIA vote returned 94% in favour is because of blokes like me are absolutely fed up with the direction management is taking this company”
And I would suggest you are correct. Somehow I just don’t think the legal system is going support industrial action because the salaried workers are annoyed with how the company is run despite your business acumen and expertise.
But keep me informed as to how this approach works out for you.
Let me give you a top tip. I didn’t chose the Adam Air example, Qantas did.
“I would suggest to you that the reason the PIA vote returned 94% in favour is because of blokes like me are absolutely fed up with the direction management is taking this company”
And I would suggest you are correct. Somehow I just don’t think the legal system is going support industrial action because the salaried workers are annoyed with how the company is run despite your business acumen and expertise.
But keep me informed as to how this approach works out for you.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me give you a top tip. I didn’t chose the Adam Air example, Qantas did.
Somehow I just don’t think the legal system is going support industrial action because the salaried workers are annoyed with how the company is run despite your business acumen and expertise.
Prof..
Where, in all this, is the management's open, truthful/honest explanation of the current "predicament"? They obviously do not currently have the employees on side and I would have thought that other model airlines' (eg unionised Southwest) success would bear out the logic of a more inclusive strategy in this 'crisis'.
It would be more than convincing if the AIPA committee were briefed by management, even if confidentiality clauses were required etc, and then came out saying "it's all true folks". The credibility gap lies in the fact that management are perceived by all employees, not just pilots;
- to have lied on many occasions in the last ten years,
- to still be lying about the group's figures and cost apportionment now,
- to be intentionally mis-representing AIPA claims,
- to be unable to quantify any target toward which AIPA can aim, and
- to be intent on the coincidental demolition of pilots' careers in the near future.
The turn-around from "all segments profitable" late 2010, to "International losing 200mil" announcement last month is remarkable! Their figures are so stark that it should be easy to explain in less than a day, without media grandstanding, exactly what needs to be achieved; especially to a group of employees with so much invested in 'the brand' and whose profession also deals in facts.
All this mistrust does not seem to be consistent with the sometimes-touted world-class QF management. Unfortunately the corollary, and your apparent defence of it as the prerogative of management, is that scheming, deception and obfuscation are real, intentional and inescapable qualities QF employees face in their "leadership".
You said "The employees of QF do not own the brand". Are you saying management does?
It would be more than convincing if the AIPA committee were briefed by management, even if confidentiality clauses were required etc, and then came out saying "it's all true folks". The credibility gap lies in the fact that management are perceived by all employees, not just pilots;
- to have lied on many occasions in the last ten years,
- to still be lying about the group's figures and cost apportionment now,
- to be intentionally mis-representing AIPA claims,
- to be unable to quantify any target toward which AIPA can aim, and
- to be intent on the coincidental demolition of pilots' careers in the near future.
The turn-around from "all segments profitable" late 2010, to "International losing 200mil" announcement last month is remarkable! Their figures are so stark that it should be easy to explain in less than a day, without media grandstanding, exactly what needs to be achieved; especially to a group of employees with so much invested in 'the brand' and whose profession also deals in facts.
All this mistrust does not seem to be consistent with the sometimes-touted world-class QF management. Unfortunately the corollary, and your apparent defence of it as the prerogative of management, is that scheming, deception and obfuscation are real, intentional and inescapable qualities QF employees face in their "leadership".
You said "The employees of QF do not own the brand". Are you saying management does?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holic,
“Where do you think Qantas would be now if the Adam Air strategy had gone ahead? What do you think that says about the competency of QF management?”
Please re read my posts on this thread. At NO POINT have I ever judged the competency of the people managing the Qantas brand or business. Not once. I have never offered an opinion as to how successful a Qantas business venture in Asia will be. Pointing out what probable and logical direction the company will take should not mean to imply my support for such a move.
Your stated objective is to ensure “Qantas pilots .. stay in the cockpit of Qantas flights” and yet each debate here devolves into a critique of the “direction” the company is headed and the “mis representing” that occurs and that “Qantasia will be a disaster”. They may be valid observations but they do nothing to add weight to the legitimacy or not of your industrial action.
“You said, "The employees of QF do not own the brand". Are you saying management does?”
“Who has ownership over the QANTAS brand?”
According to the law, the brand is the intellectual property of the corporation and in practice its value lies in the hands of the customer. Try painting a Qantas roo on the side of your Cessna and see how long it takes until there is a lawyer knocking on your door.
“Where do you think Qantas would be now if the Adam Air strategy had gone ahead? What do you think that says about the competency of QF management?”
Please re read my posts on this thread. At NO POINT have I ever judged the competency of the people managing the Qantas brand or business. Not once. I have never offered an opinion as to how successful a Qantas business venture in Asia will be. Pointing out what probable and logical direction the company will take should not mean to imply my support for such a move.
Your stated objective is to ensure “Qantas pilots .. stay in the cockpit of Qantas flights” and yet each debate here devolves into a critique of the “direction” the company is headed and the “mis representing” that occurs and that “Qantasia will be a disaster”. They may be valid observations but they do nothing to add weight to the legitimacy or not of your industrial action.
“You said, "The employees of QF do not own the brand". Are you saying management does?”
“Who has ownership over the QANTAS brand?”
According to the law, the brand is the intellectual property of the corporation and in practice its value lies in the hands of the customer. Try painting a Qantas roo on the side of your Cessna and see how long it takes until there is a lawyer knocking on your door.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the law, the brand is the intellectual property of the corporation and in practice its value lies in the hands of the customer. Try painting a Qantas roo on the side of your Cessna and see how long it takes until there is a lawyer knocking on your door.
(e) prohibit Qantas from taking any action to bring about a change of its company name to a name that does not include the expression "Qantas"; and
(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport passenger services under a name other than:
(g) require that the head office of Qantas always be located in Australia; and
(h) require that of the facilities, taken in aggregate, which are used by Qantas in the provision of scheduled international air transport services (for example, facilities for the maintenance and housing of aircraft, catering, flight operations, training and administration), the facilities located in Australia, when compared with those located in any other country, must represent the principal operational centre for Qantas; and
(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport passenger services under a name other than:
(i) its company name; or
(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression "Qantas"; and
(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression "Qantas"; and
(h) require that of the facilities, taken in aggregate, which are used by Qantas in the provision of scheduled international air transport services (for example, facilities for the maintenance and housing of aircraft, catering, flight operations, training and administration), the facilities located in Australia, when compared with those located in any other country, must represent the principal operational centre for Qantas; and
I would not have thought that any CEO of a US carrier is in a position to tell what is a premium carrier.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A cheap seat at the front of a 777 :-)
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never had a problem with AA LAX-LHR, sure better than UA and no worse than Virgin Atlantic or British Airways down the back.
It depends what you are used to I suppose.
It depends what you are used to I suppose.
Prof...
That was a part, and legalistic, answer. Would you care to comment on this question though?:
"Where, in all this, is the management's open, truthful/honest explanation of the current "predicament"?"
Do you think solid management should be able to win the 'hearts & minds' in such dire times? How could they do it better? Why, in your view, is Qantas apparently so far from diffusing the sentiment described in my previous post?
Or is the case simply that management genuinely feel no need to 'bring the workers with them'?
Thanks.
"Where, in all this, is the management's open, truthful/honest explanation of the current "predicament"?"
Do you think solid management should be able to win the 'hearts & minds' in such dire times? How could they do it better? Why, in your view, is Qantas apparently so far from diffusing the sentiment described in my previous post?
Or is the case simply that management genuinely feel no need to 'bring the workers with them'?
Thanks.
Prof...
Bringing this back to the top; you were contributing until 25th.
Work commitments? Offline? Or is it that you can't or won't offer an opinion on the other questions raised? (#43 & #49). I might be swayed if you can offer a credible defence and explanation of Qf management's actions.
On the other hand, nothing further will mean I must be sceptical of the defensibility of the points you've tried to make so far.
I'm not angry, but genuinely interested.
Work commitments? Offline? Or is it that you can't or won't offer an opinion on the other questions raised? (#43 & #49). I might be swayed if you can offer a credible defence and explanation of Qf management's actions.
On the other hand, nothing further will mean I must be sceptical of the defensibility of the points you've tried to make so far.
I'm not angry, but genuinely interested.
