QANTAS - WHERE TO NOW?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Exodus
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Overtime in Base Maint.
Sorry if it's already been asked, but where did the wigs pluck their 2% overtime figure from? Have they not been looking at our workloads?
Is all this O/T just a good will gesture, to pump up our bank accounts before xmas, before throwing us on the chopping board.
Sorry if it's already been asked, but where did the wigs pluck their 2% overtime figure from? Have they not been looking at our workloads?
Is all this O/T just a good will gesture, to pump up our bank accounts before xmas, before throwing us on the chopping board.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Word is, and it would now seem obvious, that nasty swine does not want everyone to know base is gone in 12 months because of the "don't give a ****e" attitude that would spread amongst the remaining dead men walking. The gig is over. Grab what you can and make the best of it. Sorry it has come to this.
Ps; new bright paint on H 245 H271, ready for jet* 787 and sdo 737
Ps; new bright paint on H 245 H271, ready for jet* 787 and sdo 737
Last edited by Short_Circuit; 15th Nov 2012 at 06:30.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nappy stain gone, can't happen fast enough. But it is too late. 30 % of syd eng gone next month. That's probably 50% of Qf engineering this year. It just won't work anymore.
You know it takes 2 years to train a school leaver to be a manager, it takes 10 years for him to be a competent LAME, and that is being generous.
You know it takes 2 years to train a school leaver to be a manager, it takes 10 years for him to be a competent LAME, and that is being generous.
Last edited by Short_Circuit; 15th Nov 2012 at 06:40.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looking for the bridge of trust
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we made McDermott look like a complete idiot when he told those above him he would screw us over and drive us into the ground. Look what happened to him. Now a fat controller with the railways.
Let's see if the same can be done with Nappy Stain because he's doing exactly the same thing.
Let's see if the same can be done with Nappy Stain because he's doing exactly the same thing.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard on the tv that rail crop is dumping hundreds of managers, they must have just woken up to the fact that the Big Mac types from QE and Qfutures who have destroyed their company now as well. You know, the fat controller and friends.
Anyway take care of your safety and those on the crew, don't go above and beyond because you will just be stabbing yourself in the back and the of your mates, managers do not have mates just acquaintances and rivals, poor bastards.
Anyway take care of your safety and those on the crew, don't go above and beyond because you will just be stabbing yourself in the back and the of your mates, managers do not have mates just acquaintances and rivals, poor bastards.
Last edited by Short_Circuit; 15th Nov 2012 at 07:12.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Exodus
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shares buy back = $1.28 = fail.
Nice one
Cascade them apples down the pipeline. Next up, the nearing completion of a $30M glass house. It'll be so cutting edge, I can just feel it.
Nice one
Cascade them apples down the pipeline. Next up, the nearing completion of a $30M glass house. It'll be so cutting edge, I can just feel it.
Please try a little to understand the QF management problem.
From my experience in bringing in new allegedly labor saving IT technology to companies, you face a very simple problem: If you have Twenty staff at the start, and the new technology allegedly takes Ten staff, then if you postpone the eventual redundancy to say, Six months after the introduction of your new system guess what happens?
Thats right. The system that was designed to take ten people to work it now takes Twenty people since everyone "burrows in" and subverts the system as they have a vested interest in the system not working as advertised. Furthermore the Three "change coordinators" - consultants that you hired temporarily to install and commision the system and maybe do a little training have "burrowed in" too and are now indespensible to your operation.
So the result is that instead of saving Ten staff you now added Three and there is no way you can make the system work without every effing one of them!!
The management solution prescribed to fix this problem is to fire all but the Ten staff you are supposed to need and tell them to make the new system work- or else. That means, among other things, changing work practices to suit the way the system works, not changing the way the system works to suit your current method of working, which is always disastrously expensive.
Now this system suits consultants and "know nothing" managers. It guarantees you will get something like what was promised in the glossy brochures, but you have no way of improving anything through experience.
This sounds exactly like what is being done to you - with the obvious major problem of the immoveable object of CASA regulation colliding with the infinite force of new technology.
The risk of course is that Qantas will cut too deep, as happened with Ansett, and lose control of the technical agenda, as did Ansett, with the end result of a major incident and a suspended AOC.
There is a better way, but that involves skilled and experienced managers, a consultative workplace style and a very different way of implementing new technology, but that is another subject.
From my experience in bringing in new allegedly labor saving IT technology to companies, you face a very simple problem: If you have Twenty staff at the start, and the new technology allegedly takes Ten staff, then if you postpone the eventual redundancy to say, Six months after the introduction of your new system guess what happens?
Thats right. The system that was designed to take ten people to work it now takes Twenty people since everyone "burrows in" and subverts the system as they have a vested interest in the system not working as advertised. Furthermore the Three "change coordinators" - consultants that you hired temporarily to install and commision the system and maybe do a little training have "burrowed in" too and are now indespensible to your operation.
So the result is that instead of saving Ten staff you now added Three and there is no way you can make the system work without every effing one of them!!
The management solution prescribed to fix this problem is to fire all but the Ten staff you are supposed to need and tell them to make the new system work- or else. That means, among other things, changing work practices to suit the way the system works, not changing the way the system works to suit your current method of working, which is always disastrously expensive.
Now this system suits consultants and "know nothing" managers. It guarantees you will get something like what was promised in the glossy brochures, but you have no way of improving anything through experience.
This sounds exactly like what is being done to you - with the obvious major problem of the immoveable object of CASA regulation colliding with the infinite force of new technology.
The risk of course is that Qantas will cut too deep, as happened with Ansett, and lose control of the technical agenda, as did Ansett, with the end result of a major incident and a suspended AOC.
There is a better way, but that involves skilled and experienced managers, a consultative workplace style and a very different way of implementing new technology, but that is another subject.
Last edited by Sunfish; 15th Nov 2012 at 08:56.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: On Uranus
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now this system suits consultants and "know nothing" managers. It guarantees you will get something like what was promised in the glossy brochures, but you have no way of improving anything through experience.
This sounds exactly like what is being done to you - with the obvious major problem of the immoveable object of CASA regulation colliding with the infinite force of new technology.
This sounds exactly like what is being done to you - with the obvious major problem of the immoveable object of CASA regulation colliding with the infinite force of new technology.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aeromedic
Romulus....THAT strategy is too close to tax fraud. It's bending the rules and these days, is quite transparent to the ATO.
Share buybacks when properly undertaken represent a return of capital as opposed to a dividend. The ATO gets narky if they believe it is actually a pseudo dividend but where a company treats all shareholders equally (the crux of the matter in many ways) then it i tax effective, particualrly for lower tax bracket shareholders.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the principle of share buy back and what it does, however, in this case, there was a company loss, not a profit. Cash reserves, in Qantas's case were meant for new aircraft, infrastructure improvement and the like, but not a buy back.
Buy backs are good policy when a company has billions in profits not returned to shareholders by dividends e.g. CSL and Rio Tinto, and no viable opportunities for adding businesses to their portfolio.
As to the shareholders, they would have been better served with a fully franked dividend paid from the reserves that this ill considered buy back is financing.
The plan to retire some debt early has merit, but I would think the need to retire some aircraft early would be better.
Bending the rules or not, a buy back is still dumb.
Buy backs are good policy when a company has billions in profits not returned to shareholders by dividends e.g. CSL and Rio Tinto, and no viable opportunities for adding businesses to their portfolio.
As to the shareholders, they would have been better served with a fully franked dividend paid from the reserves that this ill considered buy back is financing.
The plan to retire some debt early has merit, but I would think the need to retire some aircraft early would be better.
Bending the rules or not, a buy back is still dumb.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The place God would go for a holiday!
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basic Maths
The share buy back is simple maths. If total company capital is say $100M, and there are 100M shares in total for that company. That is $1 per share. If the company buys back 50M shares from shareholders, that is now a company still worth $100M, but the share price is now worth $2 per share (the capital is the same, but the number of total shares has halved). So, a share buy back will immediately lift the share price,as less shares on the market. Same happens in reverse, allot an additional 50M shares t o the original 100M and the share price will now drop from $1 per share to $0.66c per share. The total company capital is the same but is now spread over 150M shares which equates to $0.66cents/share.
Basic maths..... Easy for the board to increase share price with little or no action.
E
Basic maths..... Easy for the board to increase share price with little or no action.
E
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The market sentiment and perceived value drives the share price up and down. The intrinsic value gets lost in the confusion of national and international events.
Airlines are fragile and vulnerable businesses that operate on the edge and it take the combined effort of management and employees. Estrange one of these and the business is doomed.
" You can't build long term value for the shareholders unless you build long term value for the employees" Howard Shultz, Chairman of Starbucks Coffee Company.
A lesson unlearnt by the current board of Qantas.
Airlines are fragile and vulnerable businesses that operate on the edge and it take the combined effort of management and employees. Estrange one of these and the business is doomed.
" You can't build long term value for the shareholders unless you build long term value for the employees" Howard Shultz, Chairman of Starbucks Coffee Company.
A lesson unlearnt by the current board of Qantas.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
emal40,
Your math is incorrect.
The Enterprise Value of the company stays constant, not the Market Cap
(EV= Market Cap + Debt)
In your example the company Had MCap of $100m and lets say Debt of $100m. So EV is $200m)
To do the buyback debt goes up and market cap goes down.
Where this benefits Qantas is more in signalling it is undervalued -- expects to return more in dividends in the future from those shares versus return from investing in aircraft/other business
And more importantly puts paid to any hedge funds who had shorted Qantas hoping for an equity raise... those guys will be screaming blue murder.
The buyback is being funded from the Startrack sale/Boeing payment, not from the FY12 loss
Your math is incorrect.
The Enterprise Value of the company stays constant, not the Market Cap
(EV= Market Cap + Debt)
In your example the company Had MCap of $100m and lets say Debt of $100m. So EV is $200m)
To do the buyback debt goes up and market cap goes down.
Where this benefits Qantas is more in signalling it is undervalued -- expects to return more in dividends in the future from those shares versus return from investing in aircraft/other business
And more importantly puts paid to any hedge funds who had shorted Qantas hoping for an equity raise... those guys will be screaming blue murder.
The buyback is being funded from the Startrack sale/Boeing payment, not from the FY12 loss