Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

MERGED: Alan's still not happy......

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

MERGED: Alan's still not happy......

Old 14th Dec 2013, 10:59
  #961 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Not "someone"

QANTAS.
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 11:28
  #962 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Castle NastySwine
Posts: 157
At $20K per airframe per week. Since when? Till when?

Nassensteins Monster is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 11:33
  #963 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Orstrahlia mate
Posts: 10
Could it just possibly be that not all the fault is Alan's?

If we are to keep Qantas as the "International" face of Australia, how do the staff costs compare with comparable overseas airlines?

Could it be that when viewed against its competition, Qantas staff members are over paid?

Simple question
Nikki_in_oz is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 11:48
  #964 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 165
Sigh..........
spelling_nazi is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 11:50
  #965 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,160
Well lets go back 5 years shall we? Was the 1.2 billion dollar profit, slated mainly to QF International the fault of the staff?

2008 seems to be benchmark. Dixon perfectly timed but ultimately doomed bid to steal the Company ( doomed by someone else's greed... Oh the irony) meant he was on the outer and someone "with a vision for the company that blew the Board away" was on his way in.

Yes I know the GFC then happened.

But maybe a visionary would have known to keep investing in the cash generating product instead of trying to conquer Asia.

The visionary and the Board have failed miserably.

Mainline International is shrinking because when you CAN'T replace old aircraft because you blew the companies capital on failed Asian ventures the piper has to be paid.

Jetstar Asia.- never turned a real profit.

Jetstar Vietnam - why is it even still called Jetstar?

Jetstar Japan- bulk of the fleet gathering dust in Narita... Needed 60 mill just to make the payroll.

Jetstar Hong Kong. Anyone willing to take a bet on that master stroke?

Can we quit sidetracking the blame from the staff to the obvious culprits? Can the masters of the universe in this thread take their brandy snifters into the other room, because you are talking arrant garbage.
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 13:49
  #966 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Orstrahlia mate
Posts: 10
Capt Kremin

It is such a shame that members of this forum will not take part of the blame for the downfall of Qantas. Is it because they are receiving pay rates which are out of kilter with the industry worldwide?

The Australian car manufacturing industry is failing because Australian consumers are buying foreign products. If the quality and price of the Australian cars had been better, the car industry may not be withering.

Every airline buys it aircraft from one of two main manufacturers, and buys fuel at essentially the same price. The variables are your operating costs, and how much premium you can leverage out of your consumer. If your staff costs are too high, you will probably fail.

I merely asked a question. How do Qantas staff costs compare with their comparable overseas competition?
Nikki_in_oz is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 19:06
  #967 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 892
Ok, ill play.
If i (qf pilut) went to say, emirates, same rank, same aircraft as im doing now (15 years in qf) id be taking home more $$$.
Thats the simple angle from my hip pocket perspective but its a lot more complex than that. Which is kind of my point....
Just wait til the mighty AUD returns to its rightful place - and it will - the qf salaries will be looking pretty cheap. Again.
maggot is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 19:08
  #968 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Nikki,

I am a QF B767 FO. Were I to move to EK, EH, QR (these are where most Q pilots on LWOP have gone), I would be receiving more in the hand than I currently do. The money is on par with what QF A330 crews receieve. On top of my net pay, do not forget that QF must also pay payroll tax and my income tax comes out of this as well. The B744 and A380 crews earn more than that and I have always been a fan of fleet pay.

The problems Qantas are currently experiencing are multifaceted, but include an old inefficient fleet (other airlines can depreciate their fleet a lot faster - this is what I believe AJ should have been singing and dancing about for the last few weeks), outdated work practices (remember that LH tech crew have been 'determined' rather than negotiated and AIPA told the company that 'everything was on the table' in order to keep QF crews flying QF aircraft), staff : airframe oversupply (QF has come a long way since privatisation, but still has a long way to go to free itself of the public service mentality), some highly intense competition that doesn't need to make a profit (I do not include VA here) and finally an incompetent CEO and board who have a universally flawed strategy.

It is this last point that Qantas needs to fix with haste. Staff pay is an easy target for people here on PPRuNe because you'll always get someone to bite back but the reality is that crew wages are a relatively small component of costs. Reducing wages would provide a small saving, but in the grand scheme of things there are much bigger savings available elsewhere.

I do not believe that QF is in dire circumstances. I do believe, as do the vast majority of crew at speak with, that we can be more efficient, but that relies on both sides negotiating rather than stonewalling. QF are not the first company to flag a loss of this size, and certainly won't be the last. There are a lot of 'levers they can pull' to return to profitability, but posting a loss at this stage of the game certainly helps the propaganda war with Canberra.
OneDotLow is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 19:43
  #969 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,476
Good on you one dot low.
A reasoned response.
Brodle - I don't have disdain for all QF pilots - not at all.
I do have disdain for the very bitter ones who continually moan.
We had them at NZ as well... often found flying Daddy's yacht - and the drivers on that fleet will know what I mean.
Oh, and we're not exposed to actually building the plants - we let others take that risk - but I can't tell you anymore, cos then you'd know who I work for...

Last edited by tartare; 14th Dec 2013 at 19:57.
tartare is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 20:31
  #970 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 29
Nikki in Oz

Not necessarily overpaid but less productive than elsewhere.

Work overseas and you will see what productivity is there.More$$ but more hours.
Put international on the domestic award and instantly Qf won't be needing as many pilots.
Simple equation- hard to argue against but I'm sure someone will anyway
spellcheck is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 20:41
  #971 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,839
When you refer to "staff costs", I assume you mean across the board? Pilot salaries are pretty standard- just look at the going rates advertised (widely) internationally. If other airlines can get their other labour (check-in, bag-chuckers, cleaners, catering, back office etc. ) for $400-odd a month, how is QF to compete with that? Whilst driving down labour costs might be an ideal in some quarters- do people in Australia really want that, and all it entails? As far as QF goes- how do you level that playing field?
ferris is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 21:16
  #972 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 432
It's hard to compare apples with apples, but in an attempt to do so can you someone give an estimate of how many stick hours a QF 380 pilot would fly in a roster period.

How many LAX returns or LHR returns would a F/O or Capt operate in a 56 day roster?
Vorsicht is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 21:17
  #973 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lhr - Syd - Lax
Posts: 356
... sigh ...

spellcheck .. wrong. Can't be bothered covering it all AGAIN FFS!!

AND

for the 4 millionth and third time .. the current problems at QF have ZERO to do with employee costs.


noip is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 21:18
  #974 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,134
...As far as QF goes- how do you level that playing field?
  1. Provide a more superior service than the others
  2. Charge a premium price for that superior service

There's a hell of lot less competition....up there, than there is....down there!
peuce is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 21:20
  #975 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Aussie
Posts: 12
There are two ways to profitability. Reduce costs or increase revenue. AJ and his management team have, in my opinion, taken the 'easy' option and chosen to reduce costs in an attempt to return the airline to profitability. By bleating and moaning about the regulatory environment that they are operating in is a pretty weak argument. I hate to bring it up, but look at Air NZ, they operate in a very similar regulatory and labour environment and are also an end of line carrier. Yet they can turn a reasonable profit. There are absolutely no excuses that AJ can give that justify the level of losses forecast. The reason QF is in this situation is purely a result of bad management. Why can they just not admit that they have taken their eye off their core business (QF) and invested too much time and money into off shore JQ operations.
Big Balls is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 22:04
  #976 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 801
I get the impression Larry Pickering is not a Chairmans Club Member:

THE GOOSE FINALLY RUNS OUT OF GOLDEN EGGS - The Pickering Post
V-Jet is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 22:04
  #977 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 242
I will keep repeating it ad nauseum, from the board down, the strategy for a long time has been to operate franchise LCC operations in Asia - at the expense of the QF international. There is only so much capital to go around. It was decided at least a decade ago to direct that capital to Asia.

How do I know? Because Bruce Buchanan explicitly told us the management strategy in 2011, giving the game away.

Jetstar to invest $470m in Singapore hub Date: July 18 2011

He said that the company is aiming to maintain a 20 per cent share of the Asia Pacific low-cost carrier market and might need to have as much as 400 aircraft by 2020.

"The total (fleet size of) the low-cost carrier market (in Asia-Pacific) is about 450 aircraft today and we envisage it to grow to in excess of 2000 aircraft by the end of the decade," he said on the sideline of a media briefing in Singapore.

"To maintain 20 per cent market share by 2020, we need about 400 aircraft," Buchanan added without elaborating when the carrier will start making orders of those aircraft.

Jetstar, which operates nearly 80 aircraft in the region, mostly single-aisle A320s, has about an additional fifty A320s and around the same number of Boeing 787 Dreamliners in order.
Every move since then has been to continue this strategy, not reverse it.

The bottom line is they have long since decided to let the international side of the operation wither & abandoned any real effort to fix it. They need to find an excuse to make it someone else's fault. The AUD / Wages / Unions / Legislation / Governments inaction / Government intervention - take your pick from the menu. Anything else except managements deliberate and calculating strategy to move the capital to Asia.

Lets face it, one can always find a reason to justify a course of action you were always going to undertake. This is a conditioning process for the Australian public, condition them for the [engineered] inevitable failure. But it must become someone else's fault - that is crucial to avoid or proper public scrutiny
FYSTI is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 22:52
  #978 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 56
FYSTI

Excellent post that hits the nail right on the head. Pure and simple management are f..ng it up.

As for the MBA types, well they are a dime a dozen in todays world.

Plenty of drivers in the world but few skilled racing car types.

I mean what kind of highly qualified MBA spends copious amounts of time and energy posting on annonymous forums.

The bullshit on some of these threads is absolutely astounding.
tenretni is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2013, 23:34
  #979 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,129
A few people have brought up the "efficiency" of Pilots in regards to the number of hours they fly compared to other companies Pilots. My question is whose responsibility is this?

Is this the Responsibility of Management to roster them to do more hours making them more efficient? Or if it is a regulatory concern then is it not the Responsibility of Management to seek a better FRMS that gives them the ability to roster better? Or are the Pilot group causing the inefficiency themselves by not accepting requests to fly more hours?

As far as I've been made aware by others working for Qantas the majority of them don't reach their Flight n Duty limitations therefore they have more hours to be used they simply aren't being used, so therefore shouldn't this be an issue where Management are not making sure the hours are being used as efficiently as possible?

Now I'm not great with Financial stuff (The fact that I used the word "stuff" should be enough evidence of this!) But I just had a quick look through the Qantas Annual Report 2013, what I noticed under "Expenditures" was Man Power and Staff Related which amounted to about $3.825 Billion, or about 24% of their Total Expenditures in that section,
(Qantas Annual Report 2013)
After continuing to read through a bit (ie, Skim it cause it's a lot of voodoo to me!) we get to the KMP (Key Management Personnel) portion which lists their Short-Term and Long-Term Benefits, Other Long-Term Benefits, Termination Benefits and Share-Based Benefits which totaled to $16.899 Billion...
(Qantas Annual Report 2013)
Is this correct? Is this report really telling us that this group of 17 KMP are worth (Whether through shares or direct salary) 4.4x the worth of all the other staff combined?! Or am I just misreading/over-simplifying it?
Ixixly is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2013, 00:30
  #980 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: WA
Age: 66
Posts: 140
get the impression Larry Pickering is not a Chairmans Club Member:

THE GOOSE FINALLY RUNS OUT OF GOLDEN EGGS - The Pickering Post
Pickering has a rant, but the REALLY interesting part is at the top of the comments below, the long comment from trooper 5 "why holden went down the gurgular" (sic) Extract from an article detailing work practices and union control at Holden. If even half of that is true, they all deserve to go. It has the ring of truth for me, for it mirrors what has gone on in the past in unionised mining, and still persists today on some sites in NSW and Qld. Utter rorting, union-protected. NOT, repeat NOT saying this is the case with any Q employees, but as increasing parallels are drawn between the definite demise of Holden, and the possible demise (unlikely) of Qantas, be wary of being sucked into that vortex. Keep your distance, preserve the brand.
And be wary of wonderful new agreements on offer, the back-slapping may turn into howls of anguish a few years down the track when the company shuts up shop, citing unsustainable costs .They may be playing a longer game than the average member can comprehend. Bluescope Steel, anyone...?
ranmar850 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.