OPEN SKIES - bull****! Australian Industry protected from cheap imports?
"So we shouldn't be paying $14KG for Bananas from QLD after the cyclone and instead importing Phillipines bananas and paying $3KG?"
What about providing bananas from QLD at $3kg instead of $14kg?
What about providing bananas from QLD at $3kg instead of $14kg?
Moderator
US car industry is also on it's knees despite the massive home market, it couldn't succeed on it's own turf because it didn't make the cars people wanted.
Germany's population is only 81 million, four times the Australian market and one third the US market and it's labour cost is similar to Australia, yet it has a thriving vehicle manufacturing and export industry, including BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, Rolls Royce, Bently, Bugatti, Ford and GM Opel. How can Germany, with it's relatively small domestic market and high labour costs, support so many profitable vehicle manufacturers? Production efficiency and proactive export development perhaps?
Even in the UK, when local car manufacturers have been acquired by overseas companies (Rolls Royce, Bently and Daimler by German companies and Jaguar by Tata of India), after technological investment those companies return to profit.
Do you think the state of the Australian vehicle manufacturing industry may also have something to do with our local (and imported) industry management decisions, lack of investment in efficient, modern technology, the quality of the products we produce and our inability to market our products internationally?
Why is the European large ship building industry again thriving and able to compete against Asia with it's lower labour costs? France is now a major builder of cruise ships, including Cunard liners and the QMII. Investment in modern design and efficient construction technology perhaps? Where has our ship building industry gone?
Why does Europe, with it's high labour costs, again dominate the technology and manufacture of high speed, cost effective rail transport, when the Australian rail industry languishes in slow, inefficient, pathetic 1940's technology?
Why does Europe have a thriving electronics and white goods industry and can compete against Asian imports, when our electronics and white goods industry - AWA for example - are all but non existant? Even the Kiwis, population 4 million, make and export better white goods than Australia (Fisher and Paykel). Why did we sell the Victa Airtourer to New Zealand, then buy back over 100 aircraft?
Why are we digging up Australia and shipping the raw products overseas instead of value adding our exports? What will we do when we've exported all our iron, bauxite, coal, uranium and LNG/CSG?
Why is our cattle and sheep industry dependent almost totally upon live exports, rather than exporting processed meat, wool and leather products? Why are all our abattoirs going broke when overseas abattoirs are thriving, processing our Australian live meat production?
Why must Qantas move off shore to access lower labour costs when other western world airlines (AIG, Southwest Airlines), with similar labour costs, are profitable? How can Europe, with it's relatively high labour costs, have a successful aircraft manufacturing industry - Airbus and RR for example - and European airlines maintain their aircraft in Europe, when Qantas must send our aircraft for maintenance to developing and low cost countries, with questionable standards and practices? Does Qantas pay GST on their aircraft parts and labour sourced overseas when reimporting their repaired aircraft, or is that another hidden financial benefit? Why are the two largest Qantas shareholders (J P Morgan and HSBC) local off shoots of overseas financial institutions, when we have a strong finance industry and billions invested in super funds here in Australia?
Why have all our Australian innovative developments - the cochlear implant, orbital engine and DME for example - all moved off shore for production?
Why do we allow our Governments to obscenely over regulate and micro manage our industry and industrial relations arrangements, whilst providing little incentive for R&D, investment in modern technology and export development and promotion? Why do we accept without question, CASA taking twenty three years so far and counting, to produce a set of aviation regulations? Why do we accept ever increasing tax levels for no return on our investment? Why do we believe a couple of hundred politicians in Canberra, most with no real world business experience or acumen, know better than us how to build our businesses and spend our earnings?
Why is our Government reducing it's investment in vocational and tertiary education and hell bent on turning every TAFE college, technical college and university into a profitable commercial enterprise? Why is the failure/non completion rate of Australian apprenticeships around 60% (or successful completion rate around 40%) when as a nation we have a deplorable trade skills shortage and must deplete developing county skills to provide our skilled work force? Why do we have a deplorable hospital system and must import nurses and doctors to meet our need, when we should be training our own kids?
Why is our Government investing $43 billion of your tax money in a monopolistic national fibre optic network and guaranteeing higher internet and communication costs when, given the right environment and appropriate encouragement and non cash incentives, our private enterprise should be making the investment, probably at less than half the capital cost and lower, competitive user charges?
Why do we have an over regulated finance market, RBA dictated interest rates and a protected, monopolistic banking industry, when the cost of money should be driven by market forces of supply and demand? Why are bank interest rates double the prime rate? We allow the market to dictate the value of our Australian Dollar but totally regulate our interest rates?
Despite having a FIRB review process, why are we selling our only profitable export companies, including our resource industries, to overseas interests? Why do we need a $71 billion carbon tax - to produce even more revenue for our Government to "invest" in their pet schemes?
The cost of labour is a very significant factor, but is it the only factor influencing the viability of our Australian industry and commerce? Do we need protection of our industries against imports and foreign labour costs, or do we need a far more flexible, innovative and proactive commerce and industry environment, in partnership with our Australian work force, with far less intrusion by Government?
Why do we need to import our company Board Members and CEOs from overseas, Mexico, the USA, Ireland? As Australians, are we so dumb, incompetent and incapable of managing and growing our own businesses?
Why do we have a national "tall poppy syndrome" culture? Why do we criticise and denigrate our home grown entrepreneurs like Gina Reinhart, Twiggy Forest, Lindsay Fox, Dick Smith and others who invest in Australia, employ Australian workers and often personally contribute generously to our society? What is so wrong and obscene about "having a go" and accumulating wealth?
Why are we allowing our Government to accumulate unnecessary and obscene debt levels and deficits for very little real growth or improvement in our Australian quality of life? Why don't we demand value for money?
Why do we blame low overseas labour costs as an excuse for our own inability to show innovation, enterprise, lack of technological investment and inability to develop export markets?
Perhaps low cost Asian labour has less to do with our ailing industries, than our own lack of investment in technology, onerous inflexible and invasive Government regulation and inability to efficently compete in a modern world?
We inherit our world and caretake it for our children.
At the present rate, there won't be much for them to inherit except a lunar lanscape of holes in the ground, decrepit industry, no agricultural industry and a net importer of food, a mountain of debt and a third world economy!
Think about it!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do have a mechanism to protect our international aviation industry, its call the International Air Services Commission or IASC. It can be found at
International Air Services Commission
The way it works is that Governments world wide own the international rights, not the airlines who are in theory "lent " these rights for a period. The rights are created under bi-lateral agreements between governments. In Australia's case the negotiation is a multi department negotiation where many factors come into play. However the 2 basic organisations that are always present are DFAT and DOT.
When new rights are negotiated, the allocated period expires or the rights are handed back, the IASC has a hearing to reallocate the rights. In the past these hearings were widely advertised and submissions from interested parties were encouraged. However the grounds for comments are limited to those listed on their web site and can be changed by the Minister.
The last Ministerial criteria issued was in 2004.The section of interest to all in our industry is "General Criteria for Assessing Benefit to the Public". Included in this area is an item of great use to employees if we choose to use it. "Industry Structure.
(e) The Commission should assess the extent to which applications will impact positively on the Australian Aviation Indiustry."
This paragraph was inserted in the early days of the deregulation process when AIPA,ALAEA,FAAA and the ASU were taking an interest at the political level.At the time AIPA employed an economist who together with a couple of Com members actively participated in commenting on all IASC determinations.This team was particularly successful in their task in most cases backing Qantas but not always.There were times when the Ansett pilots in particular and also Qantas were not impressed, but it was AIPAs job to represent their members and they did it well.
With the demise of Ansett, AIPA decided in their wisdom (unwisely in my opinion) that there was no longer a real threat and wound the project down. The economist was let go. To the best of my knowledge the whole process has not been picked up again.
So the question is, given the history, why are the Aviation Industry not again participating in the IASC allocation process? The legislation allows for industry participation and indeed it took a lot of time and money to establish that right.The history is there in the allocation statements on the website. The process is there on the website. All that is needed is the will and the continuous effort.
However the only way that by experience this works, is for all the Associations to work together so they sing from the same song sheet. The AIPA process worked because they spent money on someone who could produce documents in economic speak and had a Phd after his name so the public servants couldn't discredit him. There was also a massive effort into establishing working relationships with the IASC and DOT. The process took a lot of time and money but it worked.I don't see why it won't work again.
OK so that takes care of code sharing and outsourcing. If you are not clear how, then think opposing in the IASC every traffic determination that the Qantas group applies or any other Australian airline for that matter, where the whole operation is not Australian.Having opposed it in the IASC then seek maximum publicity about your submission.
As far as open skies and allocation of foreign carriers, that requires a regular presence in Canberra.The Associations have to have the same level of presence as the Airlines do. Think Government Relations Dept. That also is achievable but as I said earlier you will have to spend money and be there for the long term. This kind of relationship is expactly that, a personal relationship between individuals and it has to be consistent and long term.
Again this worked in the past but for whatever reason was let go.
Wunwing
International Air Services Commission
The way it works is that Governments world wide own the international rights, not the airlines who are in theory "lent " these rights for a period. The rights are created under bi-lateral agreements between governments. In Australia's case the negotiation is a multi department negotiation where many factors come into play. However the 2 basic organisations that are always present are DFAT and DOT.
When new rights are negotiated, the allocated period expires or the rights are handed back, the IASC has a hearing to reallocate the rights. In the past these hearings were widely advertised and submissions from interested parties were encouraged. However the grounds for comments are limited to those listed on their web site and can be changed by the Minister.
The last Ministerial criteria issued was in 2004.The section of interest to all in our industry is "General Criteria for Assessing Benefit to the Public". Included in this area is an item of great use to employees if we choose to use it. "Industry Structure.
(e) The Commission should assess the extent to which applications will impact positively on the Australian Aviation Indiustry."
This paragraph was inserted in the early days of the deregulation process when AIPA,ALAEA,FAAA and the ASU were taking an interest at the political level.At the time AIPA employed an economist who together with a couple of Com members actively participated in commenting on all IASC determinations.This team was particularly successful in their task in most cases backing Qantas but not always.There were times when the Ansett pilots in particular and also Qantas were not impressed, but it was AIPAs job to represent their members and they did it well.
With the demise of Ansett, AIPA decided in their wisdom (unwisely in my opinion) that there was no longer a real threat and wound the project down. The economist was let go. To the best of my knowledge the whole process has not been picked up again.
So the question is, given the history, why are the Aviation Industry not again participating in the IASC allocation process? The legislation allows for industry participation and indeed it took a lot of time and money to establish that right.The history is there in the allocation statements on the website. The process is there on the website. All that is needed is the will and the continuous effort.
However the only way that by experience this works, is for all the Associations to work together so they sing from the same song sheet. The AIPA process worked because they spent money on someone who could produce documents in economic speak and had a Phd after his name so the public servants couldn't discredit him. There was also a massive effort into establishing working relationships with the IASC and DOT. The process took a lot of time and money but it worked.I don't see why it won't work again.
OK so that takes care of code sharing and outsourcing. If you are not clear how, then think opposing in the IASC every traffic determination that the Qantas group applies or any other Australian airline for that matter, where the whole operation is not Australian.Having opposed it in the IASC then seek maximum publicity about your submission.
As far as open skies and allocation of foreign carriers, that requires a regular presence in Canberra.The Associations have to have the same level of presence as the Airlines do. Think Government Relations Dept. That also is achievable but as I said earlier you will have to spend money and be there for the long term. This kind of relationship is expactly that, a personal relationship between individuals and it has to be consistent and long term.
Again this worked in the past but for whatever reason was let go.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 7th Aug 2011 at 22:12.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post wunwing.
I'm interested that some have chosen the auto manufacturing sector as a comparison. Yes subsequent govts have poured money into the sector, but it's hardly for the industry to "stay competitive" but rather to stay afloat. Let's not forget political expediency either!!
Talk to anyone in the know in that sector here in OZ and there has been more non-production days over the last few years despite ACIS and the "green car fund" providing millions.
The biggest "killer" in my opinion to the industry was the tariff reductions. But consumer power is often what govts will look at in my policy decisions like this.
Where its not tariff barriers there are free trade agreements, bi-lateral or multi-lateral deals. It all starts to get complex very quickly....
As for aviation, there is the Chicago convention, the 'free skies' between OZ and NZ and overaching govt policy on aviation which suggests competitiveness and "safety" are the dominant parameters.
At the end of the day when it comes to "outsourcing" ultimately it's govt policy and legislation which sets the parameters. Whether we like what QF have done, ultimately if there is an environment where creating low cost carriers and employing foreign based crew to fly into OZ is legally allowed then ultimately it's the parameters that need to change.
I'm interested that some have chosen the auto manufacturing sector as a comparison. Yes subsequent govts have poured money into the sector, but it's hardly for the industry to "stay competitive" but rather to stay afloat. Let's not forget political expediency either!!
Talk to anyone in the know in that sector here in OZ and there has been more non-production days over the last few years despite ACIS and the "green car fund" providing millions.
The biggest "killer" in my opinion to the industry was the tariff reductions. But consumer power is often what govts will look at in my policy decisions like this.
Where its not tariff barriers there are free trade agreements, bi-lateral or multi-lateral deals. It all starts to get complex very quickly....
As for aviation, there is the Chicago convention, the 'free skies' between OZ and NZ and overaching govt policy on aviation which suggests competitiveness and "safety" are the dominant parameters.
At the end of the day when it comes to "outsourcing" ultimately it's govt policy and legislation which sets the parameters. Whether we like what QF have done, ultimately if there is an environment where creating low cost carriers and employing foreign based crew to fly into OZ is legally allowed then ultimately it's the parameters that need to change.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about service?
I think we all have it wrong. Stop the complaints about overseas competition. At my age (and I suspect a lot of you are near me!) I want SERVICE and QUALITY, and I am prepared to pay for it.
If we take the airline example, I want to get to my destination quickly, in clean, well maintained aircraft. I am off to Greece shortly, so why would I travel QF? They can only satisfy maybe two of my criteria.
And don't get me started about the retail industry, it is all very well having a new store, but if your staff know jacks**t about the product you have lost me.
Industry has to stop blaming everyone else for their worries, it is the company executives who are not delivering.
Someone tell that to AJ ?
If we take the airline example, I want to get to my destination quickly, in clean, well maintained aircraft. I am off to Greece shortly, so why would I travel QF? They can only satisfy maybe two of my criteria.
And don't get me started about the retail industry, it is all very well having a new store, but if your staff know jacks**t about the product you have lost me.
Industry has to stop blaming everyone else for their worries, it is the company executives who are not delivering.
Someone tell that to AJ ?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well written Tailwheel. Excellent post.
And more recently and focused on QF, Limelight. Well said.
Having recently travelled Business on Qatar's B777 and been very impressed with the price and service I had a quick look at Limelights forthcoming trip to Greece.
Assuming one way travel in Business (restricted fare) on August 31 here's the comparison:
Yes, just an anecdote, but when I had to get to Rome recently and at short notice, in Business, that's the sort of quick 5 minutes at the keyboard result you get. It was my first time with Qatar and it was extremely pleasant. The Business Class terminal in Dohar was wonderful. Yes, had to bus it from the 777 to get there but they even had a business class luxury bus.
That's the situation out there and QF's long-haul EBA salaries have little to do with it. Yes, I think that highly paid S/Os are an obsolete concept, but it doesn't really matter when your competition has a better route structure by far and aircraft such as the B777-300ER and 200 LR that use 30% less fuel and maintenance as well as lower landing charges-and, a much more attractive in-flight product, including a decent size IFE screen and, miracle of miracles, a tray table that didn't tilt when I put my laptop on it!
Protection usually protects weak managers, not the consumer.
Just a thought,
Best wishes
Sherm
And more recently and focused on QF, Limelight. Well said.
Having recently travelled Business on Qatar's B777 and been very impressed with the price and service I had a quick look at Limelights forthcoming trip to Greece.
Assuming one way travel in Business (restricted fare) on August 31 here's the comparison:
- Qatar: B777 to Dohar, then A321 to Athens. A$5295, total time 21 hrs, 05 minutes.
- Qantas, 1 stop to London on a B744 then transfer to BA A320 to Athens. A$8437 and 29 hrs 20 mins.
Yes, just an anecdote, but when I had to get to Rome recently and at short notice, in Business, that's the sort of quick 5 minutes at the keyboard result you get. It was my first time with Qatar and it was extremely pleasant. The Business Class terminal in Dohar was wonderful. Yes, had to bus it from the 777 to get there but they even had a business class luxury bus.
That's the situation out there and QF's long-haul EBA salaries have little to do with it. Yes, I think that highly paid S/Os are an obsolete concept, but it doesn't really matter when your competition has a better route structure by far and aircraft such as the B777-300ER and 200 LR that use 30% less fuel and maintenance as well as lower landing charges-and, a much more attractive in-flight product, including a decent size IFE screen and, miracle of miracles, a tray table that didn't tilt when I put my laptop on it!
Protection usually protects weak managers, not the consumer.
Just a thought,
Best wishes
Sherm
Tail wheel is largely correct, Australia needs to get smarter or go back to just being a primary producer.
Why do we have fruit rotting on trees because farmers can't find the labour to pick it ? It's not worth it for the locals, they get more on the dole. How about a guest worker scheme ? Plenty of cheap labour available overseas, pay them the award and charge the employer a small levy so that an Australian will always be cheaper but someone will always be available.
Help business by reducing regulations and taxes, identify areas where Australia can compete and concentrate on those. Some offshoring may be necessary where the expertise is not available locally or the cost is prohibitive.
Virgin have shown that Australian airlines can deliver a competitive product and respond to the demands of a changing market. Nice new aircraft, friendly staff, attractive fares and innovation by going after the premium traveller with the services he wants. If they can do it why can't QF ?
Why do we have fruit rotting on trees because farmers can't find the labour to pick it ? It's not worth it for the locals, they get more on the dole. How about a guest worker scheme ? Plenty of cheap labour available overseas, pay them the award and charge the employer a small levy so that an Australian will always be cheaper but someone will always be available.
Help business by reducing regulations and taxes, identify areas where Australia can compete and concentrate on those. Some offshoring may be necessary where the expertise is not available locally or the cost is prohibitive.
Virgin have shown that Australian airlines can deliver a competitive product and respond to the demands of a changing market. Nice new aircraft, friendly staff, attractive fares and innovation by going after the premium traveller with the services he wants. If they can do it why can't QF ?
If they can do it why can't QF ?
Australia is being destroyed by short term thinking meanwhile long term thinking cultures like the Chinese and the Arabs are moving in and taking over our industries and farmland.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a guest worker scheme ? Plenty of cheap labour available overseas, pay them the award
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comments about the poor quality of the product may be justified and if they are, some of the blame can be sheeted home to overseas outsourcing without appropriate quality control. If the supply was sourced from within Australia, there are many ways that the product can be improved despite airline management.
On thinking about the subject I suspect what has happened is that for many years, in one large airline at least, the management thought that they were running the show but they weren't. Certainly in the large airline that most of my career was in, the employees and the unions ran it (well) through a complex web of personal and professional relationships which just bypassed the managers. From that we achieved a good product despite some real rubbish instructions from on high. When all the services were outsourced the managers actually had to manage and they weren't and aren't up to it.
To save this industry, the first stage is to get as much as possible back into Australia. When we have achieved that, the next stage is to sort out the management mess.
The only way to get the work back in Australia is via the process of my earlier post. But for that to work every group in the industry will have to pull together.Up to now that has proved impossible because of lack of trust and the divide and conquer of the employers.
Wunwing
On thinking about the subject I suspect what has happened is that for many years, in one large airline at least, the management thought that they were running the show but they weren't. Certainly in the large airline that most of my career was in, the employees and the unions ran it (well) through a complex web of personal and professional relationships which just bypassed the managers. From that we achieved a good product despite some real rubbish instructions from on high. When all the services were outsourced the managers actually had to manage and they weren't and aren't up to it.
To save this industry, the first stage is to get as much as possible back into Australia. When we have achieved that, the next stage is to sort out the management mess.
The only way to get the work back in Australia is via the process of my earlier post. But for that to work every group in the industry will have to pull together.Up to now that has proved impossible because of lack of trust and the divide and conquer of the employers.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 8th Aug 2011 at 21:19.
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
Certainly in the large airline that most of my career was in, the employees and the unions ran it ( well) through a complex web of personal and professional relationships which just bypassed the managers. From that we achieved a good product despite some real rubbish instructions from on high. When all the services were outsourced the managers actually had to manage and they weren't and aren't up to it.
Perhaps that is why management is so befuddled, despite their best efforts, management have found it difficult to kill off mainline QF because of the employee effort. Look at how much technical work goes on by the pilots union, for the benefit of Qantas. Show me any other workplace where the employee pays (union fee) to improve the safety & efficiency of their employer. This is but one example.
Excellent insight Wunwing.
Look at what happened to the Swiss watch industry with the advent of quartz technology in the 1970, their sales of mechanical timepieces were decimated by the arrival of the new technology.
However they adapted and focused on quality at the high end and introduced the Swatch at the low end. The industry survived becaused it adapted to change, protection would not have helped as the domestic market could not have supported the manufacturers who exported most of their production, the Swiss having 50% of the world watch market prior to the 1970s.
The Swatch group became the worlds largest watch manufacturer and the top end brands such as Rolex continue to prosper.
However they adapted and focused on quality at the high end and introduced the Swatch at the low end. The industry survived becaused it adapted to change, protection would not have helped as the domestic market could not have supported the manufacturers who exported most of their production, the Swiss having 50% of the world watch market prior to the 1970s.
The Swatch group became the worlds largest watch manufacturer and the top end brands such as Rolex continue to prosper.
Moderator
Why do we have fruit rotting on trees because farmers can't find the labour to pick it ? It's not worth it for the locals, they get more on the dole. How about a guest worker scheme ? Plenty of cheap labour available overseas, pay them the award and charge the employer a small levy so that an Australian will always be cheaper but someone will always be available.
But why do we need expensive guest workers when in other developed countries the process of fuit picking has been totally mechanised? Citrus, apples, pears, olives, grapes, bananas, stone fruit and nuts are now harvested in other developed countries by machines, very efficiently and in a very cost effective manner.
One recent TV article from California demonstrated that two workers, with two specialised machines, can selectively pick over 100 acres of premium ripe citrus fruit per day.
And where does that Californian citrus fruit end up? In Coles and Woolworths because our fruit industry won't invest in technology and innovation and can't compete on price!
Our grain and sugar industry has efficiently mechanised and is a net exporter; why can't our fruit industry modernise and efficiently produce fruit at reasonable prices, rather than being a net importer of fruit to meet the Australian demand?
Why does our meat producing industry produce world class live beef, lamb, pork and poultry at very competitive prices, but our inefficient meat processing industry can not compete in quality or price and Australia is a net importer of pork from Canada??
Why must the discerning, non price sensitive Australian business class traveller to Europe travel on a Etihad, Saudi, Singapore or Cathay to get the quality service he expects, rather than travel on our national airline?
How can Germany, with it's relatively small domestic market and high labour costs, support so many profitable vehicle manufacturers?
Because the population of Europe in 2009 was somewhere around 850 million people. All within a short (by Oz standards) travel time of the German factories.
Secondly and this relates more directly to the airline world, Germans as a population and specifically as manufacturers have a reputation for very high standards. Therefore the consumer feels confident about the product. Much like buying a ticket on a trusted carrier compared to an unknown SE Asian carrier.
This is where the analogy gets interesting. I bought a Bosch washing machine due to a price vs quality comparison. When I looked carefully I discovered it was asembled in Thailand!
Why must Qantas move off shore to access lower labour costs when other western world airlines (AIG, Southwest Airlines), with similar labour costs, are profitable?
The older ones here will remember when "Made in Japan" meant rubbish. Japanese factories turned out poor quality goods at low prices. Then they got smart, if you've already gone to the trouble of making a product ie sourcing raw materials, setting up a factory, employing and training a workforce, you can get much larger profits for a small investment in improving quality.
Spend a bit more money on design and materials and suddenly your 99cent widget goes for $5.00. Why do aircraft engineers spend so much on SNAP ON tools, $30+ for a simple screw driver bit when KMART will do a 99 piece set for that price ?
Spend a bit more money on design and materials and suddenly your 99cent widget goes for $5.00. Why do aircraft engineers spend so much on SNAP ON tools, $30+ for a simple screw driver bit when KMART will do a 99 piece set for that price ?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Springfield
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF is in the service industry, and in that industry all players basically compete with technology and product. All players have access to the same level of technology so that leaves their product. Over the last decade, QF have been leaders in neither. Whose to blame for that, not the competition....