Geoffery Thomas...again
What will Geoff write about when we have all gone to the middle east and asian pilots are FIFO domestic in Oz...
I know, he could become an accident investigator.
With luck the first to go in will be full of pollies and journo's.
I know, he could become an accident investigator.
With luck the first to go in will be full of pollies and journo's.
More info for you Geoff, re pay rates.
Don't let the facts get in the way though.
Mr Borghetti says there was a 5 per cent difference between the salary of a Boeing 737 pilot flying a Virgin Australia aircraft and an identical pilot flying the same aircraft for Qantas.
The difference was similar for ground staff, while aircraft engineers at Virgin were paid more than those at Qantas, Mr Borghetti said.
Read more: We pay enough says Virgin Australia CEO | News.com.au
The difference was similar for ground staff, while aircraft engineers at Virgin were paid more than those at Qantas, Mr Borghetti said.
Read more: We pay enough says Virgin Australia CEO | News.com.au
Again, we get the journalists we deserve.
Unless workers can come up with sufficient perks to counter those dished-out to "journalists" there is no chance of truth or even impartiality.
The same is true of the oft-quoted, so-called 'experts' from Centres for Aviation consulting organisations.
Not one journalist that I am aware of has had the impartiality to suggest that:
a) Some airlines in Asia pay way more than Qantas pay Australian staff (I know this first-hand). This whole Asianisation of QF is just a smokescreen to suppress Australian wages and thereby increase manager's wages.
b) Why try to take QF down-market to compete with low-cost Asian airlines at all? A similar parallel would be Ferrrari deciding their cars should be built in Vietnam to lower costs. The cost-cutting would be successful but the damage to what has hitherto been a successful brand would be disastrous. This is imbecilic.
And few journalists have had the cojones to doggedly pursue the very real issue of the hypocrisy of CEO's forcing wage suppression whilst simultaneously taking personal pay-rises.
How these 'journalists' can look themselves in the mirror with even an ounce of professional pride is beyond me. You can't seriously be proud of yourselves boys.
Unless workers can come up with sufficient perks to counter those dished-out to "journalists" there is no chance of truth or even impartiality.
The same is true of the oft-quoted, so-called 'experts' from Centres for Aviation consulting organisations.
Not one journalist that I am aware of has had the impartiality to suggest that:
a) Some airlines in Asia pay way more than Qantas pay Australian staff (I know this first-hand). This whole Asianisation of QF is just a smokescreen to suppress Australian wages and thereby increase manager's wages.
b) Why try to take QF down-market to compete with low-cost Asian airlines at all? A similar parallel would be Ferrrari deciding their cars should be built in Vietnam to lower costs. The cost-cutting would be successful but the damage to what has hitherto been a successful brand would be disastrous. This is imbecilic.
And few journalists have had the cojones to doggedly pursue the very real issue of the hypocrisy of CEO's forcing wage suppression whilst simultaneously taking personal pay-rises.
How these 'journalists' can look themselves in the mirror with even an ounce of professional pride is beyond me. You can't seriously be proud of yourselves boys.
What is frustrating is that reporters ask for comments from people such as Peter Harbison at CAPA who never discloses that a major source of his business' income is consulting services from the self-same Qantas!!! His opinions may or may not be correct but he should at least disclose a potential conflict of interest.
Here's a question for our friend GT.
In the event Xenophon's senate inquiry finds QF have been creative with J* costs and international is in fact profitable, will you print a retraction to all your "must move offshore", pro QF management articles?
What if you got a guarantee said retraction wouldn't affect your kickbacks?
In the event Xenophon's senate inquiry finds QF have been creative with J* costs and international is in fact profitable, will you print a retraction to all your "must move offshore", pro QF management articles?
What if you got a guarantee said retraction wouldn't affect your kickbacks?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that everyone is comparing apples with oranges and to make it even more difficult to find some sort of answer we have to contend with creative accounting.
It's not just the difference in a fortnightly pay packet to consider it's all the other T & C'S to consider such as hours,rostering,tax in that particular country,staff travel and other employee benefits,superannuation and the list goes on.
The chances of seeing a completely transparent comparison between the various pay scales and costings of the players are virtually zero.
The media as usual or I should say the majority of the media seem to be more interested in headlines than reporting the truth.
It's not just the difference in a fortnightly pay packet to consider it's all the other T & C'S to consider such as hours,rostering,tax in that particular country,staff travel and other employee benefits,superannuation and the list goes on.
The chances of seeing a completely transparent comparison between the various pay scales and costings of the players are virtually zero.
The media as usual or I should say the majority of the media seem to be more interested in headlines than reporting the truth.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm most certainly not a GT fan, quite the opposite, but I really didn't see any huge problem with this story. It was fairly accurate, and after listening to the recording, this statement:
was clearly not in accordance with what the pilots were thinking.
A Virgin Australia spokesman said that on arrival in Perth, Flight 697 had sufficient fuel to reach an alternate airport, although fuel to reach an alternative destination was not required to meet the regulatory requirement.
I'm most certainly not a GT fan, quite the opposite, but I really didn't see any huge problem with this story. It was fairly accurate.
He has to protect his QF Club & perks somehow.
45 mins reserve fuel? Maybe for a weekend warrior like GT.
Turbine aircraft typically carry 30.
But then he knows everything about aviation doesn't he?
Stick to playing with model aeroplanes in your bathtub Thomas. If you flew an aeroplane as well as you report, you'd have bought the farm by now.
Tool.
Turbine aircraft typically carry 30.
But then he knows everything about aviation doesn't he?
Stick to playing with model aeroplanes in your bathtub Thomas. If you flew an aeroplane as well as you report, you'd have bought the farm by now.
Tool.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could never see GT writing an article like this about Qantas.
It's like my dealings with the Herald-Sun. The Qantas events do not get a run or appear on page 43. I rang them once about a wheel that fell off a Virgin plane and they were all over it, was front page next day.
Credibility in journalism is a thing of the past.
It's like my dealings with the Herald-Sun. The Qantas events do not get a run or appear on page 43. I rang them once about a wheel that fell off a Virgin plane and they were all over it, was front page next day.
Credibility in journalism is a thing of the past.
Take it easy, criticism need not mean abuse.
I've actually been critical of GT but I'm going to spring to his defence.
He actually did respond to stuff here on Prune once, and in a straightforward manner too, but that was when discussions were somewhat more cordial. Why would swearing at somebody encourage them to participate any further in such a forum? I personally wouldn't bother if it was me on the receiving end.
Rightly or wrongly, GT believes that QF, like Pan Am etc etc cannot sustain its unviable workplace conditions in the face of competition from lower cost competitors and there is historical precedent to justify such a position.
But personally, I don't agree with the simplistic approach of comparing QF to say Air Asia one bit (I happily pay more for a premium and safe product).
I believe GT was/is a pretty reasonable commentator on most aviation matters. I, like many here, don't agree with him at all on the QF issue but it's a long shot to suggest he's somehow "in the pocket" of QF or actively plotting against QF's competitors.
QF have of course, somewhat pathetically, bought journalists before (i.e. the disgusting "cash for comment" episode where they needed to pay people to say nice things about them) but just because someone has an opinion that may be seen as pro-QF management in one case, doesn't automatically condemn them for everything they say.
He is entitled to an opinion. That opinion may not be what we might see as sensible, realistic or even logical, but surely abusing him for that is not helpful to rational discourse?
I've actually been critical of GT but I'm going to spring to his defence.
He actually did respond to stuff here on Prune once, and in a straightforward manner too, but that was when discussions were somewhat more cordial. Why would swearing at somebody encourage them to participate any further in such a forum? I personally wouldn't bother if it was me on the receiving end.
Rightly or wrongly, GT believes that QF, like Pan Am etc etc cannot sustain its unviable workplace conditions in the face of competition from lower cost competitors and there is historical precedent to justify such a position.
But personally, I don't agree with the simplistic approach of comparing QF to say Air Asia one bit (I happily pay more for a premium and safe product).
I believe GT was/is a pretty reasonable commentator on most aviation matters. I, like many here, don't agree with him at all on the QF issue but it's a long shot to suggest he's somehow "in the pocket" of QF or actively plotting against QF's competitors.
QF have of course, somewhat pathetically, bought journalists before (i.e. the disgusting "cash for comment" episode where they needed to pay people to say nice things about them) but just because someone has an opinion that may be seen as pro-QF management in one case, doesn't automatically condemn them for everything they say.
He is entitled to an opinion. That opinion may not be what we might see as sensible, realistic or even logical, but surely abusing him for that is not helpful to rational discourse?