MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why aren't the instos arcing up about the present situation?
What that intent is, who knows....?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish.
I think a clear indication of people trying to justify their existence is the recent staff memo on bathtub safety.
Flight crew were recently reminded of the correct technique to enter or exit a bathtub whilst overnighting at crew hotels. Including the importance of maintaining multiple contact points to avoid slipping.
MC.
I think a clear indication of people trying to justify their existence is the recent staff memo on bathtub safety.
Flight crew were recently reminded of the correct technique to enter or exit a bathtub whilst overnighting at crew hotels. Including the importance of maintaining multiple contact points to avoid slipping.
MC.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the shareholders hold the board accountable. Why aren't the instos arcing up about the present situation?
Qantas investors must stop Alan Joyce and Leigh Clifford's Thelma and Louise act
We called for the sacking of Alan Joyce before it became fashionable, but the media campaign to dispose of him is still surprising.
CEOs are typically removed quietly, by ‘mutual agreement’.
Qantas Chairman Leigh Clifford’s op-ed for Fairfax Media on Saturday effectively shuts this option down.
Whilst a public letter of support for an embattled CEO is in itself unusual, Clifford’s article is more revealing for what it does not say, which is that he won’t be the person to push Joyce out.
Institutional shareholders, especially those at Franklin Resources, a global fund manager based in San Mateo, California, or their local office at 101 Collins Street, Melbourne, must be getting a little edgy.
It is the willingness of institutions like Franklin to continue to back a failing strategy that will determine whether Alan Joyce remains CEO and, ultimately, the airline’s future profitability.
My bet is, despite Clifford’s pleadings, they won’t tolerate it for too much longer.
Chief executive officers are hired and fired by the board. If Joyce is to be removed, it is only with the board’s say-so. What Clifford’s letter reveals is that the he and his CEO are travelling in lockstep, grasping at each other’s clothes as they lurch toward the cliff’s edge.
Last Thursday, Joyce recommitted Qantas to its 65 per cent market share ‘line in the sand’, the main cause of over-capacity in the domestic market and the principal reason for the huge fall in the airline’s domestic earnings.
Would Joyce have made that re-commitment without the board agreeing to it? Unlikely.
Same goes for the decision to channel funds to Jetstar Asia (now on hold), to hand over international passengers to Emirates and to close down the airline to help it win an industrial dispute. Joyce isn’t acting alone here.
If the board is to sack him, it can’t do so without implicating itself in the disaster.
Shareholders have two options to get the ball rolling. The first is for at least 100 shareholders, or investors owning a total of 5 per cent or more of voting stock, to write to the board telling it to call an extraordinary general meeting.
The letter must state any resolution to be put to the meeting and be signed by the shareholders requesting it. If these criteria are met, the board must call a meeting.
Public pressure on the Qantas board would increase but the likelihood of the resolutions actually getting up are somewhere between Buckley’s and no chance.
With the top 20 shareholders owning 81 per cent of Qantas stock, if you can’t persuade the institutions to let the guillotine fall you can forget it.
This is where the second option comes in. Small shareholders dutifully turn up at AGMs but their vote makes almost no difference. Once the chair’s proxy votes are cast everyone retires for tea and bikkies, resigned to the charade. Without the institutions on side, change rarely occurs.
The institution Qantas shareholders need to convince is fund manager Franklin Resources, which appears to be taking a growing interest in the fate of the flying potoroo.
Last Friday, one day after Joyce declared a $252m first half loss and reaffirmed the strategy that produced it, Franklin Resources increased its holding in Qantas from 15.4 per cent to 16.42 per cent. Interesting, no?
Better known as Franklin Templeton Investments, Franklin Resources is based in San Mateo, California. This giant US value-based fund manager has local representation in the form of wholly-owned subsidiary Balanced Equity Management in Melbourne.
Clearly, it believes there’s value in Qantas. Whether it believes that value will be realised under current management remains to be seen.
So, if you’d like to see the back of current management, Balanced Equity, led by managing director Andrew Sisson, is one of the institutions to convince. Remember that it was Balanced Equity that famously refused the $5.60 a share bid from private equity way back in 2006.
You’d expect a few discreet calls between major Qantas shareholders this week. My guess is that after last week’s display, they’ll be reassessing the Qantas management team. Perhaps one of them will soon call Clifford, suggesting he pushes Joyce out. Then, after a suitable face-saving period, Clifford will leave Qantas to ‘pursue other interests’.
That’s what all shareholders, customers and employees need to get Qantas back on track.
CEOs are typically removed quietly, by ‘mutual agreement’.
Qantas Chairman Leigh Clifford’s op-ed for Fairfax Media on Saturday effectively shuts this option down.
Whilst a public letter of support for an embattled CEO is in itself unusual, Clifford’s article is more revealing for what it does not say, which is that he won’t be the person to push Joyce out.
Institutional shareholders, especially those at Franklin Resources, a global fund manager based in San Mateo, California, or their local office at 101 Collins Street, Melbourne, must be getting a little edgy.
It is the willingness of institutions like Franklin to continue to back a failing strategy that will determine whether Alan Joyce remains CEO and, ultimately, the airline’s future profitability.
My bet is, despite Clifford’s pleadings, they won’t tolerate it for too much longer.
Chief executive officers are hired and fired by the board. If Joyce is to be removed, it is only with the board’s say-so. What Clifford’s letter reveals is that the he and his CEO are travelling in lockstep, grasping at each other’s clothes as they lurch toward the cliff’s edge.
Last Thursday, Joyce recommitted Qantas to its 65 per cent market share ‘line in the sand’, the main cause of over-capacity in the domestic market and the principal reason for the huge fall in the airline’s domestic earnings.
Would Joyce have made that re-commitment without the board agreeing to it? Unlikely.
Same goes for the decision to channel funds to Jetstar Asia (now on hold), to hand over international passengers to Emirates and to close down the airline to help it win an industrial dispute. Joyce isn’t acting alone here.
If the board is to sack him, it can’t do so without implicating itself in the disaster.
Shareholders have two options to get the ball rolling. The first is for at least 100 shareholders, or investors owning a total of 5 per cent or more of voting stock, to write to the board telling it to call an extraordinary general meeting.
The letter must state any resolution to be put to the meeting and be signed by the shareholders requesting it. If these criteria are met, the board must call a meeting.
Public pressure on the Qantas board would increase but the likelihood of the resolutions actually getting up are somewhere between Buckley’s and no chance.
With the top 20 shareholders owning 81 per cent of Qantas stock, if you can’t persuade the institutions to let the guillotine fall you can forget it.
This is where the second option comes in. Small shareholders dutifully turn up at AGMs but their vote makes almost no difference. Once the chair’s proxy votes are cast everyone retires for tea and bikkies, resigned to the charade. Without the institutions on side, change rarely occurs.
The institution Qantas shareholders need to convince is fund manager Franklin Resources, which appears to be taking a growing interest in the fate of the flying potoroo.
Last Friday, one day after Joyce declared a $252m first half loss and reaffirmed the strategy that produced it, Franklin Resources increased its holding in Qantas from 15.4 per cent to 16.42 per cent. Interesting, no?
Better known as Franklin Templeton Investments, Franklin Resources is based in San Mateo, California. This giant US value-based fund manager has local representation in the form of wholly-owned subsidiary Balanced Equity Management in Melbourne.
Clearly, it believes there’s value in Qantas. Whether it believes that value will be realised under current management remains to be seen.
So, if you’d like to see the back of current management, Balanced Equity, led by managing director Andrew Sisson, is one of the institutions to convince. Remember that it was Balanced Equity that famously refused the $5.60 a share bid from private equity way back in 2006.
You’d expect a few discreet calls between major Qantas shareholders this week. My guess is that after last week’s display, they’ll be reassessing the Qantas management team. Perhaps one of them will soon call Clifford, suggesting he pushes Joyce out. Then, after a suitable face-saving period, Clifford will leave Qantas to ‘pursue other interests’.
That’s what all shareholders, customers and employees need to get Qantas back on track.
Mayday: How Qantas went from national icon to corporate tragedy
I suspect they will cop a bigger hiding when the full year results are announced in three months time.. All eyes will be on Joyce this time around.
Not related to Qantas, but interesting, this story was in the smh doing the rounds for a while this morning then disappeared, had to dig around on google for a time to find it again... JP Morgan is one of the big Qantas institutional investors.
A technical support person who worked for JP Morgan in Australia claims the bank regularly misled its New York parent and the US Federal Reserve by failing to report losing trades.
Read more: Explosive claims on JP Morgan conduct
Last edited by TIMA9X; 26th May 2014 at 15:09.
the shareholders strategy is now quite clear. Manage the share price into the ground. Buy shares for peanuts. Then employ someone competent. Sell shares at double what you paid. Profit. Anyone who bought at $1.10 is sitting on 20% return on capital. selling today. Not bad.
No doubt AJ is a dead man walking. Having made an utter mess of things, he would only be clinging to his job by virtue of his willingness to cull 5000 workers and pare the place back to the bone. I believe he will be number 5001, after which someone else will be brought in to rebuild the company.
As for LC, $700k per annum for doing next to nothing. Not a bad simi-retirement gig. I honestly think he doesn't care what happens at all.
As for LC, $700k per annum for doing next to nothing. Not a bad simi-retirement gig. I honestly think he doesn't care what happens at all.
The The:
Spoken with the certainty of someone who has never had the Chairmans job.
Let me tell you it is a minefield. $700K is light on for that job at present. I might not like the strategy, but don't underestimate the difficulty of managing the competing agendas.
As for LC, $700k per annum for doing next to nothing. Not a bad simi-retirement gig. I honestly think he doesn't care what happens at all.
Let me tell you it is a minefield. $700K is light on for that job at present. I might not like the strategy, but don't underestimate the difficulty of managing the competing agendas.
But Sunfish, it does not appear that he is managing any of the competing interests. Rather, it appears that a strategy was decided in 2008, and nothing has changed that. I am aware that being a director carries some risk- how much of a threat would that have been up until now? (Serious question...I am ignorant of the nuances)
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: China
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uninformed opinion only....
Leigh Clifford has achieved a lot in business.
He has been a CEO and has served/serving on many boards.
He has a good reputation - and in his circle I would imagine reputation is almost as important as the value of your family trusts.
It is important to remember that Qantas is his first Chairmanship.
This role is the cherry on top - crowning glory if you like.
He cannot be seen to fail. Business success defines him.
Failure will be whispered about at Royal Melbourne Golf, The Anthenaeum and Melbourne Clubs.
Leigh Clifford has achieved a lot in business.
He has been a CEO and has served/serving on many boards.
He has a good reputation - and in his circle I would imagine reputation is almost as important as the value of your family trusts.
It is important to remember that Qantas is his first Chairmanship.
This role is the cherry on top - crowning glory if you like.
He cannot be seen to fail. Business success defines him.
Failure will be whispered about at Royal Melbourne Golf, The Anthenaeum and Melbourne Clubs.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish,
You'd be right normally, but this seems somewhat different. If it's true that AJ and LC have the complete support of the board, you'd have to think that there are few competing agendas.
Kloud9,
Whispered? The Alcan debacle lost billions for Rio with his hand on the tiller and here he is chairing Qantas. Yup, success breeds success doesn't it?
You'd be right normally, but this seems somewhat different. If it's true that AJ and LC have the complete support of the board, you'd have to think that there are few competing agendas.
Kloud9,
Whispered? The Alcan debacle lost billions for Rio with his hand on the tiller and here he is chairing Qantas. Yup, success breeds success doesn't it?
Last edited by AEROMEDIC; 28th May 2014 at 14:02. Reason: Typo
The job of Director these days is a very heavy one, more so the chairman. The Board is there to protect the assets of the shareholders, to ensure that the company is operated within the law and to ensure that the principles of good corporate governance are followed - that means the process by which decisions are made and most importantly, to ensure the risks are understood and managed.
The penalties for failing in these duties are severe and for an entity like Qantas in its current situation, I would imagine that Directors lose quite a bit of sleep every night.
The Board only really should influence business strategy at one remove in my opinion. If they don't like unions then they hire a like minded CEO. If Qantas is going into China, then the CEO (Dixon) would have had to convince the Board that this was a good idea, not vice versa.
These days, a Board members job is not for the faint hearted. They are dealing with issues that would scare the pants of the average employee. I have lost count of the number of "would be if they could be" types who thought my CEO gig and Directorships are a doddle once you know the secret handshake. They aren't and I while I criticize Qantas strategy, I've never said that Alans and the Boards jobs were easy.
The penalties for failing in these duties are severe and for an entity like Qantas in its current situation, I would imagine that Directors lose quite a bit of sleep every night.
The Board only really should influence business strategy at one remove in my opinion. If they don't like unions then they hire a like minded CEO. If Qantas is going into China, then the CEO (Dixon) would have had to convince the Board that this was a good idea, not vice versa.
These days, a Board members job is not for the faint hearted. They are dealing with issues that would scare the pants of the average employee. I have lost count of the number of "would be if they could be" types who thought my CEO gig and Directorships are a doddle once you know the secret handshake. They aren't and I while I criticize Qantas strategy, I've never said that Alans and the Boards jobs were easy.
Kloud9:
Reputation is all you have. Keep it unblemished or the phone doesn't ring.
Actually no. Much too polite.
Reputation is all you have. Keep it unblemished or the phone doesn't ring.
Failure will be whispered about at Royal Melbourne Golf, The Anthenaeum and Melbourne Clubs.
Kloud9
If that a$$clown Clifford cannot be seen to fail, then maybe it's time for him forget about union busting, morale busting and damn the torpedoes etc and be actually seen as a SUCCESS by uniting the staff, treating them as his most valuable asset (which they are) and dragging Qantas back to where it once was as a successful and highly regarded airline. In my humble opinion the only hard decision to make is cast off Jetcancer and let it stand on its own undercarriage and get back to the basics of running an airline!!!
McHale.
If that a$$clown Clifford cannot be seen to fail, then maybe it's time for him forget about union busting, morale busting and damn the torpedoes etc and be actually seen as a SUCCESS by uniting the staff, treating them as his most valuable asset (which they are) and dragging Qantas back to where it once was as a successful and highly regarded airline. In my humble opinion the only hard decision to make is cast off Jetcancer and let it stand on its own undercarriage and get back to the basics of running an airline!!!
McHale.
Thread Starter
The job of Director these days is a very heavy one, more so the chairman. The Board is there to protect the assets of the shareholders, to ensure that the company is operated within the law and to ensure that the principles of good corporate governance are followed - that means the process by which decisions are made and most importantly, to ensure the risks are understood and managed.
You can only assume that the board is following the direction from the major shareholders. I couldn't see how their strategy protects the assets of the shareholders.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon the board is busy trying to build Qantas' replacement - Jetstar. With new work arrangements/agreements/contracts they will all be jumping ship once the Qantas carcass has all dried up, followed by a rebranding back to Qantas a few years later if it suits them.
Or they could just be really, really, really stupid. Hands up those that think they could do a better job at runnung Qantas.
Or they could just be really, really, really stupid. Hands up those that think they could do a better job at runnung Qantas.
Spot on Cattletruck, and that's what the punters said from the early stages of Jet* back in 06/07 (I dare say just because of I heard it then, doesn't mean the rumours didn't start before 03 though)
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: WA
Age: 71
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whispered? The Alcoa debacle lost billions for Rio with his hand on the tiller and here he is chairing Qantas. Yup, success breeds success doesn't it?
Eh? He certainly wasn't global CEO, then or ever. That one was down to Tom Albanese, and he wore the consequences.
Eh? He certainly wasn't global CEO, then or ever. That one was down to Tom Albanese, and he wore the consequences.
Someone with known experience operating mechanical equipment, being across a range of technical aspects in fields similar to aviation and having a long documented record in fields of customer satisfaction:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/figgles1/2388808110/
I couldn't help myself...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/figgles1/2388808110/
I couldn't help myself...
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon the board is busy trying to build Qantas' replacement
These guys and gals saunter in an elite, untouchable, class.
Nunc est bibendum
I think the puff piece about the J* CEO is more about the tenth birthday celebrations and holding the wolves at bay re their performance than any direct candidacy towards running the Qantas Group.