QANTAS - WHERE TO NOW?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIMA9X you are a freaking genius! Love you work.
Good thing it wasn't the scene inside the car in the cargo hold?
And in the S.S Qantas Capt Clifford won't go down with the ship!
Good thing it wasn't the scene inside the car in the cargo hold?
And in the S.S Qantas Capt Clifford won't go down with the ship!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denist, I don't suppose it would cross your mind that QF is ninety years old. You would think in those ninety years that they would learn something, like survival in the industry, you would think that the history of the company would continually be built on, and the knowledge that only ninety years in the business could teach. It is the second oldest airline in the world, and for the last ten years it has been run by idiots, who have no interest in the airline itself, only how to conduct and run a airline at cost price. It has and always will be the National Carrier, as long as it has wings, and if the past has no interest for you, fine, but ninety years of experience should count for something, even in this fast buck world we now inhabit. Thousands and thousands of people have put their heart and soul into this company over the years, and made it one of the most successful airlines ever, until Dixon and now Joyce, so you will forgive if the older pilots and engineers do not greet their actions with enthusiasm.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TG, I agree with all the history of Qantas, but now that it now longer supported by the the government, it is no longer the "National Carrier". The term "National Carrier" infers that it has some sort of priviliged status when it clearly does not. When you are using this term it is only as an emotive attachement that you have to the company. Like I said you cannot recreate the past and thus must move forward. No amount of pontificating at the local Surf Club bar will not change that.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oral Hygeine?
TG, I agree with all the history of Qantas, but now that it now longer supported by the the government, it is no longer the "National Carrier".The term "National Carrier" infers that it has some sort of priviliged status when it clearly does not. When you are using this term it is only as an emotive attachement that you have to the company.
Like I said you cannot recreate the past and thus must move forward. No amount of pontificating at the local Surf Club bar will not change that.
pon·tif·i·cate
intr.v. (-k
t
) pon·tif·i·cat·ed, pon·tif·i·cat·ing, pon·tif·i·cates 1. To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.
2. Refer Websters Dictionary under Joy.ce and Dix-on (e.g Where is our bonus,'pesky overpaid Pilots and Engineers). Also see plunder, greed, incompetence and f#ckwit.
Why is qantas stuffed?
Go to the bottom of the page and read the second last sentence.
How many layers exist? Who knows..............
Qantas careers - Finance
Go to the bottom of the page and read the second last sentence.
How many layers exist? Who knows..............
Qantas careers - Finance
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Past graduates are currently working in a number of different roles including Financial Analyst, Principle Financial Analyst, Manager Financial Consolidation & Control, Manager Treasury Risk, Head of Finance and Group Treasurer.
Had a Principle Financial Analyst once...but the wheels fell off
Had a Principle Financial Analyst once...but the wheels fell off
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Denist, if I am at the surf club with my mates, "The don't get me started party" I am far to pi##ed to pontificate, complain yes, pontificate no. If it makes you happy QF is a national icon, (and you are right) but to me QF has always been and will always be the National Carrier. Ask the kids who waited burnt and traumatised after Bali, just waiting for that tail, ditto after the Tsunami, ask the people who lost family after QF aircraft never returned during WW2, ask the Nats how they felt when they saw that tail after fighting in Vietnam, ask the Darwinians how they felt when they packed in like sardines on that 747/200, they were just grateful. If you want it to be just a Icon feel free, I am happy to call it the National Carrier.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PERTH,AUSTRALIA
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, PAN AM was an Icon too.
Fortunately or unfortunately, emotion has no place in business.
Of course,there is the option favoured by some political parties to prop up the company(aussie car industry) or nationalise.
Not much point complaining about it now, when the writing was on the wall when dixon purchased impulse.
Fortunately or unfortunately, emotion has no place in business.
Of course,there is the option favoured by some political parties to prop up the company(aussie car industry) or nationalise.
Not much point complaining about it now, when the writing was on the wall when dixon purchased impulse.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Formerly Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teresa, I agree that Qantas is an icon, with an iconic symbol that most Australians and many foreigners would recognise.
However, the world has changed. I don't know how long it is since you were in the TAA, and then, Australian Airlines crew room, for me its around 24 years (calm down, I left prior to 89). The airline business has evolved since then. New players have arrived, and old ones, such as Pan Am have disappeared. Others are still in the throes of change, eg Air France KLM (US$ 1 Billion loss for 2011), British Airways and Iberia (IAG) (US 651 Million profit for 2011).
Change is painfull, but change can sometimes result in a good outcome. I would like Fletcher Jones still to be going strong, and Blundstone's still to be made only in Oz, and for there to be Skipping Girl vinegar (not the band) and Nylex hoses, but competition is a real factor in business, and always has been.
For Qantas to exist without change taking place, without its costs changing would require taxpayer subsidy. I do agree that the CEO needs to drive chnge, and ideally with his employees support, but if need be without.
But if it is a taxpayer subsidy that QF needs, which Government programs do you want money taken from so that Qantas can do its business without actually being competitive?
However, the world has changed. I don't know how long it is since you were in the TAA, and then, Australian Airlines crew room, for me its around 24 years (calm down, I left prior to 89). The airline business has evolved since then. New players have arrived, and old ones, such as Pan Am have disappeared. Others are still in the throes of change, eg Air France KLM (US$ 1 Billion loss for 2011), British Airways and Iberia (IAG) (US 651 Million profit for 2011).
Change is painfull, but change can sometimes result in a good outcome. I would like Fletcher Jones still to be going strong, and Blundstone's still to be made only in Oz, and for there to be Skipping Girl vinegar (not the band) and Nylex hoses, but competition is a real factor in business, and always has been.
For Qantas to exist without change taking place, without its costs changing would require taxpayer subsidy. I do agree that the CEO needs to drive chnge, and ideally with his employees support, but if need be without.
But if it is a taxpayer subsidy that QF needs, which Government programs do you want money taken from so that Qantas can do its business without actually being competitive?
Last edited by TallestPoppy; 11th Apr 2012 at 16:23. Reason: Spullung
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets end this guys, go to wikipedia, look up National Carrier Australia. There you will find,..................................QF. They call it the flag carrier, National Carrier, Flag Carrier whatever. It is not Virgin Australia (a pommy outfit) it is not JQ ( the joey) it is QF. End of story. Back to the serious stuff, like how do we save it?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Formerly Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teresa, it will be saved, to an extent, without its employees buy-in. There is no stomach in the nation to "save the Aussie icon" for an icon's sake.
Unless those within it want to accept change, change will be forced apon them.
If the employees think the Govenrment should step in with its eternally deep pockets, you have to stand up and accept someone will have to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it as employees, who is it going to be? Pensioners? Veterans? Disabled? Unemployed?
........and who is it your saving it for?......your memories, well paid employees Super, or 'the public' ?
Unless those within it want to accept change, change will be forced apon them.
If the employees think the Govenrment should step in with its eternally deep pockets, you have to stand up and accept someone will have to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it as employees, who is it going to be? Pensioners? Veterans? Disabled? Unemployed?
........and who is it your saving it for?......your memories, well paid employees Super, or 'the public' ?
Nunc est bibendum
I was having a play around with some Frequent Flyer stuff recently as to what I could get for various points, etc. I looked at some HNL flights over a range of dates for J class seats. Every selection burned my points on Jetstar rather than Qantas. There were no Qantas options available at all for the 2-3 months that I looked at. Every time it offered me the codeshare on Jetstar.
I wonder too what the FF people 'pay' J* for that seat and what they would pay QF- if a seat were available! I know many have asked the question before but the internal cost transfers for stuff like the FF scheme would be very interesting.
I wonder too what the FF people 'pay' J* for that seat and what they would pay QF- if a seat were available! I know many have asked the question before but the internal cost transfers for stuff like the FF scheme would be very interesting.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TallestPoppy
Unless those within it want to accept change, change will be forced apon them
Here's one for you. QF Shorthaul crew, for the last 20 year to this day have one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient contracts in the world. Both QF & J* work to the CAO48E, VB do not. Jetstar's contract is more restrictive than the exception, QF is not - it is pure 48E.
Pay wise, there would be lucky to be 5% difference between those 3 pilot groups when comparing a given basket of hours actually flown over the course of a year. There are differences in the headline rate, but there are also differences in the penalty clauses (QF have none, J* have effectively double pay to work a day off, VB have min 5 hours on a day off etc). Even John Borghetti says there is virtually no difference: We pay enough says Virgin Australia CEO . I would challenge you to provide evidence of a more efficient contract than QF Shorthaul. Further, contracts in Asia pay very close to all three contracts in after tax dollars.
However, management in there infinite wisdom have recently implemented rostering practices with this highly efficient contract that mean they have effectively lowered the ability to utilize crew by 10~12% below J*, and hence simply need more pilots to do the same work. This has nothing to with the unions or pilots or the contract, it was implemented unilaterally by management. Who should change?
Once again, easy to wave your hand, show us specifically what has to change.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, frequent flyer! I have had many lively conversations over the past while with frequent flyer attempting to get a "Qantas" flight with points. Every time I want to fly I can only get Jet* flights so I fone and debate. I end up not travelling with points as I absolutely REFUSE to fly Jet*! Been on Jet* twice and that's two times too many!
I no longer fly Qantas. I use Virgin!
Cheers.
I no longer fly Qantas. I use Virgin!
Cheers.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Formerly Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day FYSTI, it's a while since I operated to CAO 48, but without you supplying hours per annum and Aussie Dollar costs we won't get anywhere.
At the moment you seem to have a CEO who seems confrontational, and a workforce which appears equally confrontational. Are you satisfied that your unions know what cost the CEO wants business done at? Have they negotiated around that figure? If not you might go out of business. If you try and maintain the statuse quo I fear you will go the way of Nylex, fondly remembered, but replaced.
It's up to you. Are your unions maintaining the status quo, or ensuring your employer stays in business? Regardless of the 'after tax' salary, you need your employer to emply you long term. And if it's a tax payer subsidy, who takes a cut so that you profit?
At the moment you seem to have a CEO who seems confrontational, and a workforce which appears equally confrontational. Are you satisfied that your unions know what cost the CEO wants business done at? Have they negotiated around that figure? If not you might go out of business. If you try and maintain the statuse quo I fear you will go the way of Nylex, fondly remembered, but replaced.
It's up to you. Are your unions maintaining the status quo, or ensuring your employer stays in business? Regardless of the 'after tax' salary, you need your employer to emply you long term. And if it's a tax payer subsidy, who takes a cut so that you profit?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poppy
Profitability? QF domestic probably made $700 million plus 2010/11, given the alleged $216 million loss by longhaul.
Contracts, including rostering and rates of pay.
There are many who remember the unmentionable year as well as many who were at Ansett when it collapsed, what do you think they want?
Almost everyone on the shorthaul side want a profitable, viable business (exactly what it has been for the last 20 years) and to go to work, work hard and go home with some semblance of a life beyond flying.
As I said, QF shorthaul is highly profitable right now without a taxpayer subsidy on a contract that is competitive across Australia & Asia. Management have implemented the inefficiencies not the union or the pilots.
I've put up, time you put up or shut up.
- QF max 1000 hours per annum
- Jetstar max 1000 hours per annum
- Virgin max 900
Profitability? QF domestic probably made $700 million plus 2010/11, given the alleged $216 million loss by longhaul.
Contracts, including rostering and rates of pay.
Are your unions maintaining the status quo, or ensuring your employer stays in business?
Almost everyone on the shorthaul side want a profitable, viable business (exactly what it has been for the last 20 years) and to go to work, work hard and go home with some semblance of a life beyond flying.
As I said, QF shorthaul is highly profitable right now without a taxpayer subsidy on a contract that is competitive across Australia & Asia. Management have implemented the inefficiencies not the union or the pilots.
I've put up, time you put up or shut up.
Roughly 1/3 of the airframes doing domestic flying are with crew on the long haul award. As those aircraft are 767, A330 and 747 it would roughly equate to half of the seats.
The real issue is not crew efficiency. The unions have offered it and the company were not interested. The real agenda is setting up subsidiaries that sit outside of the Qantas Sales Act. The spin by management is not the reason, it is the excuse for why there is no investment in mainline QF. Mainline will be bled dry to set up these subsidiaries and those who organise their future sale will profit handsomely.
The real issue is not crew efficiency. The unions have offered it and the company were not interested. The real agenda is setting up subsidiaries that sit outside of the Qantas Sales Act. The spin by management is not the reason, it is the excuse for why there is no investment in mainline QF. Mainline will be bled dry to set up these subsidiaries and those who organise their future sale will profit handsomely.