MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
short flights long nights
Can they buy enough to take control?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an asset sale takes place ( see SMH Dec9th ) this may all be staved off for a while but ultimately Qantas has the goods to sell and that's what the Govt expects them to do.
Not sure how much the others own as I thought they sold off their shares 12 months ago. If the price goes low enough, they could make a move.Depends on whether they are currently actively courting the institutional investors with any degree of success.
OR- ...? Who really knows, but beauty sleep awaits...
Not sure how much the others own as I thought they sold off their shares 12 months ago. If the price goes low enough, they could make a move.Depends on whether they are currently actively courting the institutional investors with any degree of success.
OR- ...? Who really knows, but beauty sleep awaits...
Whatever happens, the company can't be turned around with the current CEO/senior management/board in place.
No matter how good their plan of attack is (assuming they come up with one), they simply won't have the support of the staff.
A fresh new leader who has the respect of staff is the only way forward I'm afraid. Until then, it's just more of the same
No matter how good their plan of attack is (assuming they come up with one), they simply won't have the support of the staff.
A fresh new leader who has the respect of staff is the only way forward I'm afraid. Until then, it's just more of the same
Join Date: May 2000
Location: everwhere
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me in having Jetstar doing international routes booked through Qantas and Qantas PAXs has ruined the Qantas brand world wide, Jetstar had the wrong management with the wrong attitude from the beginning, shown from the different winning style of Virgin. I would suggest the wrong aircraft, the wrong company plan, the wrong people at the top, and there is no change of rules that will support a failing business. Qantas is a great company that has been badly lead or well led for a takeover.
A model of how to lose business
FOR over 30 years, as a regular passenger on Qantas domestic flights, I have seen its customer service nosedive. Although a member of Qantas's frequent flyer program and the Qantas Club, I take every opportunity to fly with any other airline.
Back when Qantas had genuine competition from Ansett, the attitude of frontline staff was merely insufferable arrogance: this is how we do things; if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. They were unsackable, with salaries underwritten by the taxpayer - like public servants (but without the same accountability) or ABC journalists.
With Ansett grounded, any pretence of providing customer service disappeared. Qantas achieved a virtual monopoly with business travellers on major routes, and no amount of surly behaviour or rudeness could harm their profits. To attract new customers, it spent a fortune on some of the most expensive advertisements ever produced in this country. Yet staff did everything possible to drive away existing ones, certain in the knowledge they had no alternative but to keep coming back for more.
The final insult was abolishing check-in services altogether, forcing passengers to do it for themselves. One recalls, almost fondly, waiting an hour in a queue to be insulted and abused at the check-in. At least when Qantas lost your bags, they couldn't claim that you must have tagged your own bags incorrectly.
This deterioration is not imagined. That customer service has declined dramatically is demonstrated by the fact that one (and only one) branch of Qantas's operations has managed to maintain traditional standards. Not in ticket sales, nor at check-in, nor on the aircraft, nor even in the club lounge, where the new policy of "the customer is always wrong" now prevails. Traditional customer service has survived only at valet parking desks.
This isn't surprising. Valet parking is optional. You can take a taxi, park your own car, even catch public transport. Nobody is compelled to use valet parking. And most customers wouldn't, if treated with the contempt they receive elsewhere from Qantas.
This perfectly demonstrates that, absent monopolistic dominance, the availability of genuine alternatives conduces to higher standards of customer service. Other Qantas staff fully understand that the passenger has already bought and paid for a ticket, and won't change carriers at the last moment; that, with the largest number of seats across major inter-city routes, Qantas offers a flexibility which other airlines can't match. Exemplary customer service is not required to prevent passengers seeking alternatives, now or in the future. But, with valet parking, the level of customer service makes all the difference, which explains this unique exception to the new standard.
Qantas enjoys huge commercial advantages over competitors: its existing customer base, incomparable brand recognition, and an unmatched safety record; the xenophobic attraction of being the "national carrier"; and, despite Virgin Australia's best endeavours, the capacity to offer greater flexibility. So the fact Qantas is losing money, hand over fist, suggests nothing short of incompetence.
When one reads that 1000 or more Qantas staff are in peril of losing their jobs, one naturally feels for the individuals concerned. But, collectively, they have brought this upon themselves. If Alan Joyce wants to do something meaningful to save his ailing airline, he should appoint a few valet parking staff to retrain the rest of the company's frontline employees.
The worst possible response would be any form of government assistance, direct or indirect. That would simply guarantee Qantas can continue to provide a substandard service, without facing the inevitable financial consequences that all other businesses face when they neglect paying customers.
Anthony Morris QC is a Brisbane barrister.
FOR over 30 years, as a regular passenger on Qantas domestic flights, I have seen its customer service nosedive. Although a member of Qantas's frequent flyer program and the Qantas Club, I take every opportunity to fly with any other airline.
Back when Qantas had genuine competition from Ansett, the attitude of frontline staff was merely insufferable arrogance: this is how we do things; if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. They were unsackable, with salaries underwritten by the taxpayer - like public servants (but without the same accountability) or ABC journalists.
With Ansett grounded, any pretence of providing customer service disappeared. Qantas achieved a virtual monopoly with business travellers on major routes, and no amount of surly behaviour or rudeness could harm their profits. To attract new customers, it spent a fortune on some of the most expensive advertisements ever produced in this country. Yet staff did everything possible to drive away existing ones, certain in the knowledge they had no alternative but to keep coming back for more.
The final insult was abolishing check-in services altogether, forcing passengers to do it for themselves. One recalls, almost fondly, waiting an hour in a queue to be insulted and abused at the check-in. At least when Qantas lost your bags, they couldn't claim that you must have tagged your own bags incorrectly.
This deterioration is not imagined. That customer service has declined dramatically is demonstrated by the fact that one (and only one) branch of Qantas's operations has managed to maintain traditional standards. Not in ticket sales, nor at check-in, nor on the aircraft, nor even in the club lounge, where the new policy of "the customer is always wrong" now prevails. Traditional customer service has survived only at valet parking desks.
This isn't surprising. Valet parking is optional. You can take a taxi, park your own car, even catch public transport. Nobody is compelled to use valet parking. And most customers wouldn't, if treated with the contempt they receive elsewhere from Qantas.
This perfectly demonstrates that, absent monopolistic dominance, the availability of genuine alternatives conduces to higher standards of customer service. Other Qantas staff fully understand that the passenger has already bought and paid for a ticket, and won't change carriers at the last moment; that, with the largest number of seats across major inter-city routes, Qantas offers a flexibility which other airlines can't match. Exemplary customer service is not required to prevent passengers seeking alternatives, now or in the future. But, with valet parking, the level of customer service makes all the difference, which explains this unique exception to the new standard.
Qantas enjoys huge commercial advantages over competitors: its existing customer base, incomparable brand recognition, and an unmatched safety record; the xenophobic attraction of being the "national carrier"; and, despite Virgin Australia's best endeavours, the capacity to offer greater flexibility. So the fact Qantas is losing money, hand over fist, suggests nothing short of incompetence.
When one reads that 1000 or more Qantas staff are in peril of losing their jobs, one naturally feels for the individuals concerned. But, collectively, they have brought this upon themselves. If Alan Joyce wants to do something meaningful to save his ailing airline, he should appoint a few valet parking staff to retrain the rest of the company's frontline employees.
The worst possible response would be any form of government assistance, direct or indirect. That would simply guarantee Qantas can continue to provide a substandard service, without facing the inevitable financial consequences that all other businesses face when they neglect paying customers.
Anthony Morris QC is a Brisbane barrister.
QANTAS has about 2.2 billion shares on issue. At a share price of 1 buck and 2 billion in cash on the balance sheet how can a takeover NOT be in the offing?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With management this bad, after culling heads for the umpteenth time, the solution will probably be rolled out as a new livery with minuscule adjustments to the 'roo, the font, and some international b-list fashionista redesigning the uniform at vast expense.
Kardashians, anyone?
Kardashians, anyone?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that a large chunk of the $2bn is guaranteed against debt. Airlines need large cash buffers to guard against short term hiccups. There is no way that is all free cash they can spend without being technically insolvent.
JB did say about two years back that Virgin were better situated to sustain a fare war than Qantas. He may well have been correct. My guess is that the $900m full year loss would result in the Company trading insolvent, hence AJ's increased sense of urgency.
JB did say about two years back that Virgin were better situated to sustain a fare war than Qantas. He may well have been correct. My guess is that the $900m full year loss would result in the Company trading insolvent, hence AJ's increased sense of urgency.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over the last 46 years of my experience, every time QF is about to have a big loss they revamp the uniform at considerable expense.
When the latest one was announced, I commented to friends that this would be the first new uniform I'd seen that wasn't associated with some internal financial crisis.
I was wrong!!
G'day
When the latest one was announced, I commented to friends that this would be the first new uniform I'd seen that wasn't associated with some internal financial crisis.
I was wrong!!
G'day
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So true unfortunately about Qantas service. There are always exceptions of course but the general rule was that Ansett was all over Qf in service and approachability of staff. (Of course there were always the petty tyrants at the Ansett waitlist counter!!)
But it's important to remember that there isn't always a satisfying reason or justification for things that happen. Good people have bad things happen to them, once great companies can find themselves in unrecoverable situations. It is a tragedy to all concerned when it happens, but management is just one component( a big one , but just one).
In this brave new world of aviation, the airlines on the ascendant have very low cost structures due to their demographic and economic base. Work practices are less rigid, and of course wages and conditions are commensurate with that. As global citizens, we are loyal to the dollar and not so much to the carrier. We use search engines to locate the flights to and from our destination, and usually choose what we see as the best value for our money. I have to say this is rarely Qantas in my experience, but if it were remotely close I would still choose Qantas, I just haven't been able to justify that over the last few years.
The product provided is not differentiated enough from others to warrant the higher cost base. As difficult as it is to accept, wages are way too high ( about 30% too high) to enable Qantas to be a significant competitor. They have given away their advantage of destination variety to a LCC that only some wish to subject themselves to over a long flight, and now it is easier and cheaper to travel with one of the many other airlines who can get you there faster and/or cheaper.
Other airlines coming into the country have strangled the only other advantage they had. The Government must take some responsibility for that, but then again , they have ensured competitively low fares and more are able to travel than ever before.
.
Sure, sack the board, put in others who know a bit more about what this business essentially is and what it needs to do, but everyone also needs to accept that the new management would still be faced with the same problems. Whatever decisions have been made in the past and the consequences of them, however true and justified the vocal recriminations, nothing can change the past. Look at what you have to work with and come to terms with what the new reality is.
Looking back constantly with regret, prevents anyone from looking forward to a solution and seeing that solution clearly.
Just my thoughts based on past personal experiences.
But it's important to remember that there isn't always a satisfying reason or justification for things that happen. Good people have bad things happen to them, once great companies can find themselves in unrecoverable situations. It is a tragedy to all concerned when it happens, but management is just one component( a big one , but just one).
In this brave new world of aviation, the airlines on the ascendant have very low cost structures due to their demographic and economic base. Work practices are less rigid, and of course wages and conditions are commensurate with that. As global citizens, we are loyal to the dollar and not so much to the carrier. We use search engines to locate the flights to and from our destination, and usually choose what we see as the best value for our money. I have to say this is rarely Qantas in my experience, but if it were remotely close I would still choose Qantas, I just haven't been able to justify that over the last few years.
The product provided is not differentiated enough from others to warrant the higher cost base. As difficult as it is to accept, wages are way too high ( about 30% too high) to enable Qantas to be a significant competitor. They have given away their advantage of destination variety to a LCC that only some wish to subject themselves to over a long flight, and now it is easier and cheaper to travel with one of the many other airlines who can get you there faster and/or cheaper.
Other airlines coming into the country have strangled the only other advantage they had. The Government must take some responsibility for that, but then again , they have ensured competitively low fares and more are able to travel than ever before.
.
Sure, sack the board, put in others who know a bit more about what this business essentially is and what it needs to do, but everyone also needs to accept that the new management would still be faced with the same problems. Whatever decisions have been made in the past and the consequences of them, however true and justified the vocal recriminations, nothing can change the past. Look at what you have to work with and come to terms with what the new reality is.
Looking back constantly with regret, prevents anyone from looking forward to a solution and seeing that solution clearly.
Just my thoughts based on past personal experiences.
Incompetent CEO's at anything fiddle with the logo and paint. They want to put their stamp on the place, and as they are probably unlikely to manage it in a meaningful way, why not have a go at the expensive and irrelevant? In AJ's case, as an airline CEO he makes a fantastic room renovator. His largesse knew no bounds as far as buildings, lounges, offices, parties and then that horrible club foot Kangaroo. And how could any self respecting BGA leave out playing with clothes?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheehan's not just talking about the pilots here. This is a reference to all union activity at Qantas. Unfortunately, the position he espouses is one shared by the majority.
Their plan?
Let Qantas declare itself broke. Sack everybody and let Jetstar take over. Everybody gets reemployed on half salary ... Does anybody remember 1989?
Seriously there is an evil plan. Bus Drivers on $500,000 are in target range
Seriously there is an evil plan. Bus Drivers on $500,000 are in target range
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just put up on SMH business pages; Food for thought??
QBE Insurance Group's chair, Belinda Hutchinson, has signalled her retirement from the insurance behemoth as the company disappointed investors with yet another major profit downgrade.
Ms Hutchinson, who was appointed chairman in July 2010, led the company's board during a difficult period for QBE following years of aggressive acquisitions.
QBE said on Monday that it would suffer an expected $US250 million ($274.8 million) net loss for the year to December, as profit hits from its beleaguered US division festered.
The insurer is expected to post a cash net profit of around $US850 million for the year, and an insurance profit margin of around 6 per cent – nearly half the previously flagged 11 per cent.
Advertisement
The insurer has failed to meet its full year profit guidance every year since 2009.
US-based QBE director Marty Becker, the former chief of Alterra Capital Holdings who joined the Australian insurer's board four months ago, has been named the new chair.
QBE Insurance Group's chair, Belinda Hutchinson, has signalled her retirement from the insurance behemoth as the company disappointed investors with yet another major profit downgrade.
Ms Hutchinson, who was appointed chairman in July 2010, led the company's board during a difficult period for QBE following years of aggressive acquisitions.
QBE said on Monday that it would suffer an expected $US250 million ($274.8 million) net loss for the year to December, as profit hits from its beleaguered US division festered.
The insurer is expected to post a cash net profit of around $US850 million for the year, and an insurance profit margin of around 6 per cent – nearly half the previously flagged 11 per cent.
Advertisement
The insurer has failed to meet its full year profit guidance every year since 2009.
US-based QBE director Marty Becker, the former chief of Alterra Capital Holdings who joined the Australian insurer's board four months ago, has been named the new chair.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a reference to all union activity at Qantas.
I think Tony Morris has a point, but from personal experience many of those staff started out as keen, helpful people and ended up with a bad attitude due to the horrible way they were treated by Qantas management year in year out. That's not the right way to behave, but it's still understandable.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Virgin has to deal with unions too"
Yes of course they do, but the difference is that Virgin began from a lower $ base and the negs are all about trying to lift that to bridge the gap between them and the opposition. The problem is , Qf base has always been so much higher and now in order to be competitive they need to lower it- hence the conflict with the unions.
Also VA has had the benefit of most staff experiencing the growth of the airline from nothing and the pride ensuing from that. More likely then that the staff feel more connected to the challenges.
Having said that disenchantment certainly exists at VA too especially in the ground ops. They feel the pinch of not enough money every day.
Yes of course they do, but the difference is that Virgin began from a lower $ base and the negs are all about trying to lift that to bridge the gap between them and the opposition. The problem is , Qf base has always been so much higher and now in order to be competitive they need to lower it- hence the conflict with the unions.
Also VA has had the benefit of most staff experiencing the growth of the airline from nothing and the pride ensuing from that. More likely then that the staff feel more connected to the challenges.
Having said that disenchantment certainly exists at VA too especially in the ground ops. They feel the pinch of not enough money every day.