Qantas:After The Dust Has Settled
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Sunfish, I dont agree AJ is just Clifford's and Strong's whore. its these guys who need removing they are bunch of greedy spineless arogant bast*ds . sack the board is the only way to go !
You guys don't get it. The shareholders (the ones that matter anyway) are 100% behind these guys. It's not "joyce" or "clifford" or "the board". None of them would be there without major shareholder support. Who do you think elected Clifford to the board? The remuneration report vote was testament to that.
That's not to say that I am a fan of any of them.
That's not to say that I am a fan of any of them.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Major shareholders represent 20% of total shareholdings... therefore 20% hold the power over 80%, it just is not right and is not a true reflection of the majority will.. 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
And which part of closing down the Rat as we know it escapes you gents ???
I want it to happen can't wait in fact, Bring on the CR!
If not I will walk and get a another good job, it's just that simple!
The Board is gooooooonnnnnneeee! Just look at their last pathetic qantasluxury t w e e t, its almost embarrassing to realise they are so out of touch! Again can I request BRING IT!
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more shares you hold, the more money you have invested in the company, the more risk you have taken, the more rights you should have in terms of voting. If reflective of the profile of the shareholdings, it's absolutely right that, for example, 20% of the shareholders hold 80% of the votes. Why should I, with my $1000 worth of shares, have the same vote as someone who owns $10m?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In the bone yard.
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, you must be talking about the fund managers who sat there fat dumb and stupid when the GFC hit the fan, did they advise us to put our super into cash, nah, "super investments have their up and downs, if you lose your money the whole world will, and you must be in it for the long haul". My reply when I was pulling the charred remains out was "all well and good but I would like to have something left to fight back with".
The whole money industry is smoke, mirrors & greed, period.
Trolls need not reply.
The whole money industry is smoke, mirrors & greed, period.
Trolls need not reply.
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, really. Who are these people? And where is your authority for the contention that their wishes are not being accommodated? Given your statement I assume you have intimate personal knowledge, so of course you would also be able to provide a proportional comparison of satisfaction versus dissatisfaction?
Not many of you were complaining when one of those said INSTITUTIONS stood up and saved Qantas from the clutches of Private Equity.
Back on the topic, assuming Alan's plan is not to completely gut and destory QANTAS (I grant you an assumption that may be totally erroneous), the company's pretty much screwed anyway.
The staff simply aren't listening anymore. They have no interest in what management has to say. The level of apathy is tragic and telling and bodes poorly for the future of the organistaion should it survive the current ructions. It's an insult to their skills anyway but many S/Os don't seem to be interested in getting a "sector" anymore. The attitude is simply, "Why should I bother when I won't get a promotion for 10 years if I'm lucky enough to have a job after arbitration?". An attitude that is - sadly - perfectly understandable. (The debate on the definition of a "sector" for a S/O is best held elsewhere. As I said it's an insult anyway).
It's not just the pilots either. The level of antipathy present amongst staff at all levels and in all areas of the company towards managment is truly mind blowing.
In short, current senior management have no hope whatsoever of re-engaging with their frontline staff. Never. Ever. Full stop. Forget Excel awards or Q-Recognition or whatever it's called this week. Alan, your staff are lost to you.
That may be part of the plan to shut down QANTAS Airways and leave only a holding company behind but, if it is not, the board needs to start looking at options and soon.
The staff simply aren't listening anymore. They have no interest in what management has to say. The level of apathy is tragic and telling and bodes poorly for the future of the organistaion should it survive the current ructions. It's an insult to their skills anyway but many S/Os don't seem to be interested in getting a "sector" anymore. The attitude is simply, "Why should I bother when I won't get a promotion for 10 years if I'm lucky enough to have a job after arbitration?". An attitude that is - sadly - perfectly understandable. (The debate on the definition of a "sector" for a S/O is best held elsewhere. As I said it's an insult anyway).
It's not just the pilots either. The level of antipathy present amongst staff at all levels and in all areas of the company towards managment is truly mind blowing.
In short, current senior management have no hope whatsoever of re-engaging with their frontline staff. Never. Ever. Full stop. Forget Excel awards or Q-Recognition or whatever it's called this week. Alan, your staff are lost to you.
That may be part of the plan to shut down QANTAS Airways and leave only a holding company behind but, if it is not, the board needs to start looking at options and soon.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Race Bannon - if the pilots, Engineers etc behave in that manner - they're only hurting themselves.
Qantas will further track in a negative direction and ultimately, there will be job losses.
They would be foolish to behave in a manner that could create risk in their own futures.
Qantas will further track in a negative direction and ultimately, there will be job losses.
They would be foolish to behave in a manner that could create risk in their own futures.
Pilots behave in what manner ?
They are rostered - they fly their allocated roster. It's not an industrial tactic, it's what they're told to do by their employer. And they do it, quite competently.
The Engineers behaving in what manner ?
Too much work allocated for the full time staff complement to carry out without compulsory overtime ? I understand it's efficient for a company to run at 20% overtime but by all definitions in EVERY SINGLE workplace agreement, overtime is voluntary.
Being that it is actually, voluntary, it can be withdrawn at will, officially and unofficially. Hence there is 2 sides of the coin here. The employees may want the cash or they may not want the cash. The company may want the staff to do overtime or they may not. If it gets to an inflection point where the staff choose to not do the overtime when the company requires it, then we have a problem.
Hence the reason why it may be good business practice to run at a deficient workforce number to manage peaks and troughs in demand, it runs counter intuitive to run said policy, when you have a policy of total disengagement running at the same time, consciously or not.
They are rostered - they fly their allocated roster. It's not an industrial tactic, it's what they're told to do by their employer. And they do it, quite competently.
The Engineers behaving in what manner ?
Too much work allocated for the full time staff complement to carry out without compulsory overtime ? I understand it's efficient for a company to run at 20% overtime but by all definitions in EVERY SINGLE workplace agreement, overtime is voluntary.
Being that it is actually, voluntary, it can be withdrawn at will, officially and unofficially. Hence there is 2 sides of the coin here. The employees may want the cash or they may not want the cash. The company may want the staff to do overtime or they may not. If it gets to an inflection point where the staff choose to not do the overtime when the company requires it, then we have a problem.
Hence the reason why it may be good business practice to run at a deficient workforce number to manage peaks and troughs in demand, it runs counter intuitive to run said policy, when you have a policy of total disengagement running at the same time, consciously or not.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
we lost that battle, but the war is still raging.
QF copped an absolute bagging on Sunrise this morning regarding it's latest PR disaster. I think the lady commentating on this debacle summed up the whole situation very well.
AJ finished a memo with words to the effect that he hopes arbitration will bring an end to this dispute.
He just does not understand what damage he has created!
He has a much bigger problem now and is completely oblivious to it.
6000 workers now totally disengaged. Over ten times that number of passengers who don't believe a word he says.
Who can book in confidence when the boss wakes up one saturday morning and decides to ground the whole airline. This action is testament to his inability to manage anything!
What sort of rational behaviour is that?
He just does not understand what damage he has created!
He has a much bigger problem now and is completely oblivious to it.
6000 workers now totally disengaged. Over ten times that number of passengers who don't believe a word he says.
Who can book in confidence when the boss wakes up one saturday morning and decides to ground the whole airline. This action is testament to his inability to manage anything!
What sort of rational behaviour is that?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mars
Age: 20
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe this question really goes to the heart of why so many of us believe Qantas, in its current form, is finished. As just about every post above points out, staff are not listening to this management team. Having the terms and conditions of the new EBA forced upon them is hardly likely to smooth things over. Arbitration will settle this battle, and I believe Qantas management will pretty much get what they wanted all along. In the long term they can not succeed in this business with an 'us and them' attitude amongst their staff. Sadly, I don't see any way that can be changed.