QANTAS - WHERE TO NOW?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about how it is managed
by mohikan; The problem is that when someone says "your costs are too high" and "you need to change" they only refer to the operational staff - the LAMES, The Pilots and FA's.
This completely ignores the thousands of staff having coffee and meetings each day at the QC precinct in Mascot.
This also completely ignores the millions upon millions of dollars paid to Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Co and Oldmeadow Consulting. In the case of the latter, this consultants business model is designed to ensure ongoing conflict between the workforce and management.
This also ignores the 140 million being currently pi$$ed away building a new 'corporate campus' at mascot (at the expense of crew parking of course) at a time where SLIC would have us believed that the bankruptcy of the group is not far around the corner.
It also ignores the setting up of the new 'Qantas Strategy Department' - staffed almost entirely by ex Bain & Co personnel, the majority of whom are on 6 figures and the 'super executive' staff travel benefit scheme.
All of this is against the complete and utter failure of the business strategy as so succinctly outlined by Ben Sandliands.
The great tragedy of all this is that when Qantas fails (and I believe that is inevitable now given all of the above) it is the hardworking operational staff who will be blamed.
This completely ignores the thousands of staff having coffee and meetings each day at the QC precinct in Mascot.
This also completely ignores the millions upon millions of dollars paid to Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Co and Oldmeadow Consulting. In the case of the latter, this consultants business model is designed to ensure ongoing conflict between the workforce and management.
This also ignores the 140 million being currently pi$$ed away building a new 'corporate campus' at mascot (at the expense of crew parking of course) at a time where SLIC would have us believed that the bankruptcy of the group is not far around the corner.
It also ignores the setting up of the new 'Qantas Strategy Department' - staffed almost entirely by ex Bain & Co personnel, the majority of whom are on 6 figures and the 'super executive' staff travel benefit scheme.
All of this is against the complete and utter failure of the business strategy as so succinctly outlined by Ben Sandliands.
The great tragedy of all this is that when Qantas fails (and I believe that is inevitable now given all of the above) it is the hardworking operational staff who will be blamed.
Love it mohikan! you hit it on the head! The operational staff are the airline, its always been like that at Q, and it will always make money with the right tools, a well oiled machine, (the same goes for most other successful, well established airlines currently flying the globe.)
It's all about how it is managed ... currently this lot running the show, collectively, seem to have misplaced the meaning of the word "operational".... or, they have confused it with a similar word, inoperable.
I think it is time for a new management team, a team who understands both words.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Formerly Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of you seem to have misunderstood me when I said the costs at Qantas are too high to support replacement of the B747's with B777's.
The costs of the whole airline need to be reduced to allow the capital expenditure, not just LAME's, Pilots, and F/A's.
The industry world wide has changed, the metal and fuel are still expensive, but the costs of actually doing the business have been lowered by many competitors, via lower remuneration and more efficient working practices.
Few within Qantas seem to heed the need to change, to survive. If they don't change, Qantas will wither further, and sadly an Aussie icon will disappear.
The costs of the whole airline need to be reduced to allow the capital expenditure, not just LAME's, Pilots, and F/A's.
The industry world wide has changed, the metal and fuel are still expensive, but the costs of actually doing the business have been lowered by many competitors, via lower remuneration and more efficient working practices.
Few within Qantas seem to heed the need to change, to survive. If they don't change, Qantas will wither further, and sadly an Aussie icon will disappear.
Last edited by TallestPoppy; 7th Apr 2012 at 20:18.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Starts at the top poppy. Anyone can bully, few lead by example.
Tallest Poppy thats a load of crap given pilots and flight attendants can go overseas and make more money than they do here for airlines who are directly competing with QF.
If you want to start comparing with China Eastern etc then remember that australian airlines get free pilots. Chinese Airlines pay for the entire cost of training.
Maybe we should start comparing the CEOs salary with those of the competition in Asia? QF management cannot keep blaming everybody else for their own mistakes whilst taking grossly inflated salaries on a world standard.
If you want to start comparing with China Eastern etc then remember that australian airlines get free pilots. Chinese Airlines pay for the entire cost of training.
Maybe we should start comparing the CEOs salary with those of the competition in Asia? QF management cannot keep blaming everybody else for their own mistakes whilst taking grossly inflated salaries on a world standard.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most agree QF needs to go with the rest of the world, most agree QF needs to change some practices to continue to compete, but all agree to do that it needs a competent CEO, preferably Australian, that recognises QF for what it is, its place in this country, to have the respect of its staff, to encourage skills be they engineering, or whatever, and as most suspect, stop syphoning of monies made by QF to the offspring JQ, but instead use those monies for the advancement of QF as a vibrant and experienced airline, that is respected around the world. (Oh, and none of this political correctness crap about a Australian running the company, I say that because Australian children are taught in school about Qantas, its place in the country, its history etc and grow up with the knowledge it is the National Carrier and Australian as AFL, therefore they view it with pride and part of being Australian and it belongs to them, its difficult for someone outside the country to have the same affection.)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nev, pilots and cabin crew cannot go overseas and get QF salaries with their competitors. Businesses like EK are run with a far smaller bureaucracy and at much less cost than QF. Just about the entire administrative element of EK are sub-continental nationals earning a very average wage, less than $US 20 000 a year, and that's the high side. Caterers would earn less than $US10 000.
QF's competitors employ hosties from Asia at one quarter of the cost.
Pilot wages, particularly at the current exchange rate, are less. Tax free environments make a big difference, but don't come from the companies bottom line.
These companies don't have to work within the same industrial and political situations as QF without doubt but some of the hope for turning around QF International must come from lowered costs by trimming the QF bureaucracy. It is a legacy of the days of government ownership. Have a look at the number of employees per aeroplane compared to your competitors.
Teresa, I don't personally see QF as having some ongoing legacy as Australia's only airline. Kingsford Smith's ANA preceded them. Things change.
QF's competitors employ hosties from Asia at one quarter of the cost.
Pilot wages, particularly at the current exchange rate, are less. Tax free environments make a big difference, but don't come from the companies bottom line.
These companies don't have to work within the same industrial and political situations as QF without doubt but some of the hope for turning around QF International must come from lowered costs by trimming the QF bureaucracy. It is a legacy of the days of government ownership. Have a look at the number of employees per aeroplane compared to your competitors.
Teresa, I don't personally see QF as having some ongoing legacy as Australia's only airline. Kingsford Smith's ANA preceded them. Things change.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EG.
Like most QF drivers I am looking at overseas gigs at the moment (I am a B767 Capt with B737 experience) and there are a number of good gigs that will pay me more in the hand each fortnight.
Otherwise you have hit the nail on the head.
Qantas has 141 staff per airframe - the highest of any carrier in the world. The next closest is UA with 119.
And the majority of those staff are massively overpaid compared to their counterparts in foreign, full service airlines.
Part of this is because a large of part of the bureaucracy that supports JQ is on the Qantas books - Capt Kremin analysed this in an excellent post some time ago.
Part of it is because the overriding philosophy of Dixon and now Joyce is that management and admin costs are a necessary part of doing business, but operational costs are unnecessary waste. This is because fundamentally neither understand about the required level of detail and excellence involved in running an airline.
But mostly its because the real argument is not about cost.
Its about the ideological war against the idea that any staff member outside the senior leadership inner circle is allowed to influence their working environment.
The real shame is that the major shareholders are prepared to allow their investment to be pi$$ed away in this ideological campaign. Perhaps their thinking is that once this reform process is complete their investment will be worth more, but nothing could be further from the truth..
All that will happen is that middle and upper managements KPI linked bonus's will be increased even further.
As I said previously, nothing can save Qantas now. As part of this process, the specific plan (devised by Oldmeadow) to inflict as much individual damage on each pilot in the process will also fail. 180 have left already, and many more are going each week.
On their own terms and to a better future.
Like most QF drivers I am looking at overseas gigs at the moment (I am a B767 Capt with B737 experience) and there are a number of good gigs that will pay me more in the hand each fortnight.
Otherwise you have hit the nail on the head.
Qantas has 141 staff per airframe - the highest of any carrier in the world. The next closest is UA with 119.
And the majority of those staff are massively overpaid compared to their counterparts in foreign, full service airlines.
Part of this is because a large of part of the bureaucracy that supports JQ is on the Qantas books - Capt Kremin analysed this in an excellent post some time ago.
Part of it is because the overriding philosophy of Dixon and now Joyce is that management and admin costs are a necessary part of doing business, but operational costs are unnecessary waste. This is because fundamentally neither understand about the required level of detail and excellence involved in running an airline.
But mostly its because the real argument is not about cost.
Its about the ideological war against the idea that any staff member outside the senior leadership inner circle is allowed to influence their working environment.
The real shame is that the major shareholders are prepared to allow their investment to be pi$$ed away in this ideological campaign. Perhaps their thinking is that once this reform process is complete their investment will be worth more, but nothing could be further from the truth..
All that will happen is that middle and upper managements KPI linked bonus's will be increased even further.
As I said previously, nothing can save Qantas now. As part of this process, the specific plan (devised by Oldmeadow) to inflict as much individual damage on each pilot in the process will also fail. 180 have left already, and many more are going each week.
On their own terms and to a better future.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody has said it is the only airline, but it is the only National Carrier, and that has been acknowledged since the end of the second world war, and that is the difference, ANA a fine old airline that is was, did not forge the Kangeroo route, it did not serve in conflict, it was in fact eventually part of Ansett, and of course known as Ansett ANA. I am a TAA man, not a QF bloke, though I did end up in its hallowed halls, but hate to see it go the same way as my airline, and of course it is a hybrid of my airline. Like millions of others I want to see QF stay right where it is, and become a great airline once more and refuse to believe it cannot. Ansett gone, TAA gone, that only leaves the big fella, its worth fighting for.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mohican, agree with much of what you say. I worked for EK, probably the major competitor, and the wages are not more than QF. It may be that the perceived in the hand is more but this is not a cost to the company. Singapore don't pay more, again you may end up with more in the hand but it's not fel in the companies wage bill. I can't speak to CX B scales except anecdotally, but HK is an expensive place to live and much of the wage gain is again in the low tax base.
Teresa appreciate your loyalty. If QF were to fold then the real value to Oz that would be lost are those legacy practices that added real value to the industry, safety, training, engineering excellence etc. Proud history aside, it is of no difference to me or many people I know whether the entity survives except for the many good people employed by them. They are not legislated as the National Carrier.
Teresa appreciate your loyalty. If QF were to fold then the real value to Oz that would be lost are those legacy practices that added real value to the industry, safety, training, engineering excellence etc. Proud history aside, it is of no difference to me or many people I know whether the entity survives except for the many good people employed by them. They are not legislated as the National Carrier.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amen. We want a national carrier, management has done us wrong, legacy practicies add value (actually one of the funniest things I have heard in recent memory), passengers love flying on QF, sell JQ... blah blah blah are all excuses for not wanting to deal with the hard reality.
To survive QF needs drastic change. The sooner people get used to it the better it is.
Be a part of the solution not the problem. If you have a better plan lets hear it along with the numbers.
To survive QF needs drastic change. The sooner people get used to it the better it is.
Be a part of the solution not the problem. If you have a better plan lets hear it along with the numbers.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of tripe, shon7.
Now that is the call of the brainwashed, sycophant, incompetant manager who hasn't got a clue how to run an airline, other than to cut costs.
It is management by wrecking ball.
In actuality, QF is doing just fine. Or at least it would be if these pathetic foolish managers werent destroying it in order to justify their own feeble existence. Especially considering the fact that they are propping up a parasitic organisation like Jetstar.
So shon7, attempt to justify your comment in light of the above, will you? I DARE you to use the grossly inaccurate figures provided by that idiot Irishman. You want to be shot down? Because this is the place to do it. There are a number of people on these forums that know what they are talking about.
And that is good, because YOU clearly do not.
Are you freaking serious? Have you not read all of the solutions provided on this thread, let alone all the others running on Pprune? Have you not read everything in the media? One must shake their head and wonder what is wrong with people like you.
Comments like yours, and that of Olivia's, and Joyces; THEY are the problem. YOU are the PROBLEM.
YOU fix it.
To survive QF needs drastic change.
It is management by wrecking ball.
In actuality, QF is doing just fine. Or at least it would be if these pathetic foolish managers werent destroying it in order to justify their own feeble existence. Especially considering the fact that they are propping up a parasitic organisation like Jetstar.
So shon7, attempt to justify your comment in light of the above, will you? I DARE you to use the grossly inaccurate figures provided by that idiot Irishman. You want to be shot down? Because this is the place to do it. There are a number of people on these forums that know what they are talking about.
And that is good, because YOU clearly do not.
If you have a better plan lets hear it along with the numbers.
Be a part of the solution not the problem.
YOU fix it.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crap ex A380, QF is on the ground, all it needs is to be run properly, stop syphoning monies made off to JQ, give its staff a career instead of a contract, keep its engineering of excellence where it belongs, it is a very well known airline, a respected airline, all it requires is to be RUN PROPERLY. Its not like some old freakin washing machine that goes on the tip after 5 years. You don't write off a airline because it is not working, you FIX IT, they just need the right person, like Borgetti. That bloke would turn it around within a year, but the stupid bastards let him go. I would give him a block of flats to get him back.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha. TG and Balance have all the answers. They can work wonders. Wonder why the board didn't appoint them co-CEOs.
Fact:
At the end of the day you work for QF and AJ is your boss. If you dont like it - leave. If you think you can manage it better - do it. Quit whining. The airline owes you nothing.
Fact:
Passengers dont sympathize with you regardless of your silly little neckties or your entitlement mentality. They will vote with their feet and fly on a competitor.
Fact:
JQ is here to stay and if it wasn't for revenues from JQ you'd be facing mass layoffs by now.
Deal with it.
Fact:
At the end of the day you work for QF and AJ is your boss. If you dont like it - leave. If you think you can manage it better - do it. Quit whining. The airline owes you nothing.
Fact:
Passengers dont sympathize with you regardless of your silly little neckties or your entitlement mentality. They will vote with their feet and fly on a competitor.
Fact:
JQ is here to stay and if it wasn't for revenues from JQ you'd be facing mass layoffs by now.
Deal with it.
JQ is here to stay and if it wasn't for revenues from JQ you'd be facing mass layoffs by now.
However, what I and I suspect many other Qantas staff, would be interested to see is each entity operate as a stand-alone organisation. I think you would then find Qantas International and Domestic coping considerably better than you might perceive. It may also confirm (or otherwise) that continued investment in the Jetstar model truly is worthwhile.........or maybe not so well advised.
Unfortunately this will not happen until Qantas group management have completed their (quietly) stated aim of driving Qantas to the Jetstar model, by which time Qantas will be unrecoverable.
Some here suggest that Qantas management are incompetent. I would suggest that they are being quite successful in their goal. The ongoing success of Qantas International is not, if we are being truly honest, part of that goal, despite the words of the CEO.
shon7,
as our chief QF management apologist can you elaborate on the 20 million dollar TNT freight contract that Qantas just lost to Etihad??
A friend of mine you see just carried the head of TNT Australia who went on at great length to describe his dealings with Qantas management.
Firstly he claims to love Qantas and the brand, loves the service onboard and said he'd never met a cabin crew member that he didn't like but was most derogatory in his feelings about our management.
He described them as arrogance personified.
I'm not across the finer details as what I describe comes second hand however it seems in his dealings with them he asked for a little reciprocal support with regard to freight aircraft leasing. Whatever the finer details were Qantas management it seems refused imperiously.
He said the looks on Qantas management's representatives faces when they found out the 20 Million dollar contact had been awarded to Etihad was priceless.
As management can you fill in the details...........?
as our chief QF management apologist can you elaborate on the 20 million dollar TNT freight contract that Qantas just lost to Etihad??
A friend of mine you see just carried the head of TNT Australia who went on at great length to describe his dealings with Qantas management.
Firstly he claims to love Qantas and the brand, loves the service onboard and said he'd never met a cabin crew member that he didn't like but was most derogatory in his feelings about our management.
He described them as arrogance personified.
I'm not across the finer details as what I describe comes second hand however it seems in his dealings with them he asked for a little reciprocal support with regard to freight aircraft leasing. Whatever the finer details were Qantas management it seems refused imperiously.
He said the looks on Qantas management's representatives faces when they found out the 20 Million dollar contact had been awarded to Etihad was priceless.
As management can you fill in the details...........?
Guys,
Shon7 is a NRI (non resident Indian). Don't let him wind you up. I don't think they have got over the cricket.
If only Kingfisher stayed with making Beer, they have no clue about Aviation, aint that right Shon?
the Don
Shon7 is a NRI (non resident Indian). Don't let him wind you up. I don't think they have got over the cricket.
If only Kingfisher stayed with making Beer, they have no clue about Aviation, aint that right Shon?
the Don
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: here and there
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shon7's first 2 'facts' are not QF specific and are indeed a generalization applicable to any company. (passenger = customer.)
His third 'fact' is a statement that has no proof attached.
That post merely confirms what a moron he is.
His third 'fact' is a statement that has no proof attached.
That post merely confirms what a moron he is.