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 17th Dec 2013, 04:34
  #1101 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,458
Easy too look back at the past and thrown stones,
but remember that aircraft have substantial lead times and market conditions (eg. appropriate config for A380s due to GFC and the like) and delivery times (eg. 787s) or competitor activity (eg. startup of Scoot/AirAsiaX) can quickly change the right answer under long term plans
Except that people were saying at the time their aircraft selection was wrong. How long has the 'Why doesn't QF have 777's' mantra been going for?

Not to mention the well executed addition of the A330, wasn't that just management's finest hour?

That will probably end up in a university textbook one day on 'how not to order an aeroplane'......
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 05:17
  #1102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,098
Qantas has been managed so badly for so long that the only rational explanation is that the major shareholders want to minimise the share price to buy what they don't already own and take the business private.

The first attempt was the DIxon and Gregg takeover attempt. That failed, but the $5.+ offer price gives you an indication of what the airline is worth in the hands of a competent management motivated to maximise long term shareholder value.

After the failure of that bid, the second attempt was to install incompetent management committed to a fantasy business strategy that had no chance of working in order to drive the share price down so that an on market fire sale might be possible without the U.S. Hedge funds trying to blackmail management - as they did with the APA bid.

This strategy is/was possible. The only serious tremor was when Alan tied up with EMirates - offering QF a lifeline. The explosion from the former APA partners at Alans temerity made the press - which tells you all you need to know about motives.

My guess is that the APA Boyz are now lobbying the government NOT to bail out Qantas and instead let the tender mercies of the market deliver it to DIxon.

DIxon et als strategy on takeover is simple and direct.

1. Secure finance.

2. Roll JQ into Qantas, the JQ brand is worthless.

3. Cut loose/sell/kill the Asian subsidiaries, that was never going to work, never will work.

4. As a private company, renegotiate all awards, agreements, etc, with a profit sharing plan included. Employ competent HR people.

5. Cut destroy slash excessive layers of management. I would take the Wal Mart approach - eat your own dog food. All executive staff travel is in economy and NO exceptions, find a Fyffe to lead by example, that fixes morale.

6. Run a major rebranding advertising campaign, Singleton would have one ready to go now.

7. Lobby the Federal Government like mad to build barriers to entry again.

P.S. The fleet composition, new aircraft, etc. can be solved. Just go to Airbus and Boeing and state what you think you want and when you want it, the manufacturers are very creative people, Boeing gave us a tremendous deal at Ansett.

P.P.S. My guess is that Qantas is now running on the cash stuffed in all those hollow accounting logs that Dixon stuffed before the APA bid. THat is why Alan is desperate - no more hollow logs (eg depreciation, provisions, prepayments).
Sunfish is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 05:30
  #1103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 264
Timax,

I'm not saying anything about versions of the past. I'm simply pointing out that fleet decisions and config are very difficult as future demand and competitive response are very difficult to forecast.

I am merely an interested observer with no vested interests in any of the airlines, save for wherever my super is invested, but have some experience in managing difficult businesses that compete in global industries.

My personal views is that Jetstar (both Australia and International) was/is a good move by Qantas by keeping inhouse most of the domestic LCC growth in Australia (which was inevitable no matter who funded it) and at least giving Qantas a seat at the table in Asia, although I unfortunately think the LCCs based in Thailand, Malaysia and ultimately China are going to dominate due to cost basis.

Qantas definitely made a bad move by not ordering 777s about 5-yrs ago when the 787 issues first became apparent in order to get rid of its rapidly ageing 747 fleet for routes that weren't A380 sized, but that would have potentially meant running five widebodies in transition periods (A380, B747, B777, B787, A330 which gets back into Ansett style issues)

The Emirates deal I understand from a customer perspective, although don't see why it didn't mean QF adding PER-DXB-FRA or similar style flights. The misstep was not consumating a similar deal in Asia (obviously had discussions over years with CX, MH, SQ etc) but that is a big missing piece - but then apart from access to QF FF program and corporate contracts there isn't much QF offers (particularly to say CX who already has far more frequency into Aus than QF)

As for what Qantas means to me. Well it will always have a substantial Australian presence and trade-off bits of Australia heritage, but the reality is it already substantially an offshore product.

I mean I call-up to book a flight and am diverted to an offshore centre, probably owned by an American company, who books my ticket using a GDS owned by another American company using computers and software that come from wherever. I board my American/European made plane as are the engines and most of the components, with seats and IFE made overseas, although there is an Australian movie and radio channel, and some embarrassing Australian produced safety demo. The fuel was driled in the Emirates, refined in Singapore and shipped to Australia by a Chinese owned, some random nation flag carrier ship. My meal might have been prepared in Australia, but equally at a foreign port from the local caterer, my can of Coca-Cola is actually made in Thailand. If Qantas actually makes a profit on my ticket, 39% of it will be distributed to be foreign shareholders. Ooh and the pilot has a South African accent, no but he must be Aussie.
Then again it could have been Irish.

My choice of airlines is based on $$$, destination, frequency and then things like lounges and FF programs. In the last two years I have flown Qantas, BA, Singapore, Cathay, Iberia, American, Malaysian, Virgin Australia, Virgin Atlantic, Delta, Jetstar, FlyScoot, AirAsiaX, Air Asia, Garuda and Bangkok Air
moa999 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 05:34
  #1104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 1,543
Anyone bitching "in hindsight it is easy etc" just go back and search threads from 4,5,6,7 etc years ago.
FFS we have been talking about this for over a decade!

I know what I would do, and it wouldn't be pretty in QCA!
Or QCC for that matter, we have about 6 too many management Pilots warming office seats when they should be flying.

Talking to Boeing and Airbus plus really LOOKING at our route structure with EXPERTs In ALL fields.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 05:41
  #1105 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,020
At the risk of repeating myself, I can't believe that no one from the management or the board has still not said a word. It is both baffling and very worrying at the same time.
SOPS is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 05:56
  #1106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 1,543
Here's an idea,
Transfer the 320 orders for Jetstar wherever to 350s for mainline and start flying places!

SOPS, it is troubling that they don't know what to say or do I agree!
Tankengine is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 06:17
  #1107 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,458
FFS we have been talking about this for over a decade
Yeah exactly
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 07:48
  #1108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Orstrahlia mate
Posts: 10
ahhh "if you had to choose between the Clifford/Joyce model and
the one described here by Herb Kelleher"..........Herb started with a clean sheet of paper in the 70's. Sort of like Jetstar but without any QF "baggage". As motivated and positive all the staff at Southwest are, do you really want Qantas just to serve peanuts? A 15 minute turnaround?

A Pilot, a Cabin Crew member and a LAME on the board.....really? How about if the decision is to stop the LWOP and actually sack a tranche of pilots.......what is it you want those representative Board members to do? Especially if the sackings were the best course of action?

And Pilots selecting aircraft? Really? We will have all the options, lots of chrome, ash trays, wing mirrors, furry dice, mats etc. Do you really think we are the best people to select the aircraft?

Costs need to change at Qantas. People need to accept that the airline is in a fight for survival. Five years without any pay rises may be a start to getting the costs down.

I think AJ is either going to have to sink Qantas or get the staff to demand change to their own remuneration and working rules.

You even have people here wanting competition and new airlines banned. Qantas has no God given right to exist. It is a business, and needs to be run ruthlessly to succeed.

Be careful what you wish for....A new CEO may issue a hip and happening Mission Statement, but he may also demand a reduction in salaries, a wholesale change to the EBA's, and sack a whole load of people. And if he is lucky, Qantas may survive, but it needs to be a different airline to the Qantas of today.
Nikki_in_oz is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 08:20
  #1109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 141
To ALEA FED SEC
whats the ratio of virgin LAMEs to QANTAS LAMEs
per aircraft ???
I'll tell you what it is --- F..K ALL!!!!!
STICK TO THE FACTS FED SEC
soldier of fortune is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 08:36
  #1110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
If you can highlight one thing I said that was not factual I will retract it.There is a debate here about wages. I am just highlighting that wages for LAMEs at Virgin are higher than Qantas.


Number of Engineers employed per aircraft is irrelevant. Virgin do not have the more labour intensive A380s and 747s and they are just slowly bringing A330 work in-house. Virgin do not do heavy maintenance in-house and base work is done by JHAS. They pay other parties to do this work and they would not be counted in the "employee numbers per aircraft".


Maybe soldier of fortune you should get some facts right. And stop writing in capitals.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 09:11
  #1111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 53
Posts: 628
The numbers are what they are SP. Virgin Tech has a clear "advantage" over the equivalent QF services. Always have, probably always will. And that's not even getting to the insanely low levels some of the US airlines run their non heavy work with.
Romulus is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 10:55
  #1112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
I am with you SOPS. As anyone who is a father knows, if you cannot hear the kids, its more than likely, you have a problem.
Ida down is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 11:16
  #1113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Nikki, get out your history books. Up until the eighties, it was common for pilots and engineers to basically run the flight side of the company, and that included the decision on aircraft purchased. The bean counters and administers ran the rest. In TAA the manager was Capt. Frank Ball, in Qantas it was Capt. Bert Richie, and both airlines thrived under their control and management. Both men had the respect of their staff, both men had a habit of either turning up on a flight, or into a hanger, to have a discussion with the flight crew or engineers, to see how they were travelling, and what ideas did they have for improvement. You would find them in the galley, having a chat with the CC, and would not be aware they were even on the aircraft, until you took a walk. (Thank God, I left my tie on) unless the CC dobbed them in (more often then not) a different time I know, but if it worked then, why should it not work now? Since the bean counters took over, you could hardly call it a roaring success, and the board would not know a APU from a camels arse. I am with the suggestion of having a pilot and engineer on the board, two senior blokes that have the ability to read what the company needs in aircraft, who have had many years of experience, and have insight to the future needs of the company. Just because you are either a pilot or engineer does not make you brain dead, to outside your realm.
Ida down is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 11:20
  #1114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 141
And who does VIRGINS heavy maint???
Good old AIR NEW ZEALAND
soldier of fortune is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 11:22
  #1115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 964
Fantastic! Nikki, Rom and SOF: Get out there and buy a few hundred million QF shares because AJ needs you like never before. Fortunately there are a few true visionaries out there who get the 'big picture' and won't be swayed by nonsensical arguments made by people who have never had to put a ppt presentation together!

At least there are some real people out there who know how to run an airline profitably without having to rely on things like staff or aeroplanes!
V-Jet is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 11:55
  #1116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,163
If these manager types that can setup a stunning but useless ppt really do exist then they are not employed by Qantas.
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 12:31
  #1117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lhr - Syd - Lax
Posts: 356
Nikki,

You quite clearly have no idea. Give it a rest.

N
noip is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 13:00
  #1118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 373
Herb started with a clean sheet of paper in the 70's
QF domestic started with a clean sheet of paper in 1989, Until a "hero" of '89 conspired to undercut it in 2000 and so began the slippery slope downwards.

Interestingly, QF first employed the A330 under the QF shorthaul conditions. As I understand it, when the domestic/international establishment reached a trigger point a few years later, BOTH the company and AIPA agreed to transfer the A330 to the Longhaul award. The result was a loss of money in the pilots pockets and a huge loss of efficiency and also increased costs to the company. Something about it being just too hard to run an international operation under shorthaul provisions as the company systems could not cope.
The The is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 13:59
  #1119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Orstrahlia mate
Posts: 10
Ida, If only QF could get Capt Ball back from the heavens, he would be the ideal man to give it a good and thorough shake-up.
Nikki_in_oz is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2013, 14:55
  #1120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 11
Posts: 1,057
moa999 let's rewind the thread a little shall we,

#997 by noip
And in a contrasting management style, we have SpaceX - out to change the world:

"As much as possible, avoid hiring MBAs. MBA programs donít teach people how to create companies. " - Elon Musk

"At my companies, our position is that we hire someone in spite of an MBA, not because of one." - Elon Musk

Even the job descriptions tell you it is a "Can Do" company ..

Software Developer - Borg

I love this bit:

"Working at SpaceX, you will hold a large degree of personal responsibility, work on awesome stuff and every day be completely baffled as to how you ever worked anywhere else."

What a refreshing change.
then away we go again with the, "employee costs" people on here again & again, until noip posts .. hint, hint, nudge nudge, wink wink say no more...

#1026... 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.


then moa999 says again #1158

My personal views is that Jetstar (both Australia and International) was/is a good move by Qantas by keeping inhouse most of the domestic LCC growth in Australia (which was inevitable no matter who funded it) and at least giving Qantas a seat at the table in Asia, although I unfortunately think the LCCs based in Thailand, Malaysia and ultimately China are going to dominate due to cost basis.
Hell, am I out of place by saying "a few Qantas pilots particularity LH ones" may want to post more heads banging against the wall than noip did in his last post?

it goes on...

Qantas definitely made a bad move by not ordering 777s about 5-yrs ago when the 787 issues first became apparent in order to get rid of its rapidly ageing 747 fleet for routes that weren't A380 sized, but that would have potentially meant running five widebodies in transition periods (A380, B747, B777, B787, A330 which gets back into Ansett style issues)
Yeah, we know, I promise you....

I board my American/European made plane as are the engines and most of the components, with seats and IFE made overseas, although there is an Australian movie and radio channel, and some embarrassing Australian produced safety demo. The fuel was driled in the Emirates, refined in Singapore and shipped to Australia by a Chinese owned, some random nation flag carrier ship. My meal might have been prepared in Australia, but equally at a foreign port from the local caterer, my can of Coca-Cola is actually made in Thailand.
my bold

Urmmm, that's the way it has always been for long haul, and....??

speaking of Thailand.... sounds a lot like what Clifford & Joyce are trying to do, backfired for the Pepsico corporate wallies..... thought they knew SE Asia..

Pepsi, The No.1 Soda In Thailand, Just Had Its Market Share Wiped Out By A Lookalike Brand


Read more: Pepsi, Thailand, And Est - Business Insider

Pepsi Thailand, with a 48 percent market share. Coke
only the second most popular drink there, with 42 percent.

But all that changed late last year when PepsiCo failed to renew a distribution contract. Pepsi's main retail distributor withdrew all Pepsi products from its shelves and replaced them with "Est," its own Pepsi-lookalike brand.

By the end of the year, it became difficult to find Pepsi in Thailand, Reuters reports.

Now, Pepsi has only a 15 percent share of the market. Coke is No.1. Est is probably the No.2 brand, with a 19 percent share, and something called "Big Cola" had a 16 percent share at the end of 2012, according to the Bangkok Post.

The catastrophe happened because PepsiCo tried, and failed, to take over the distributor, Serm Suk. When the contract ended, Serm Suk launched Est in Pepsi's place


moa999, and the other "employee costs people" on here, in my view Clifford & Joyce are doing a Pepsi Thailand with the Jetstar brand using Qantas money on the backs of the hard work done by the operational staff at Qantas for over 90 years. I call it corporate highjacking.

As this is a pilots network I support them, I want to see all of them prosper, they have worked hard to get where they are today and they are good at what they do....

And another thing, the original Qantas was always International, the core reason why the Jetstar International aspect annoys the crap out of me.... I never had anything against the domestic version created by Joyce, he did the right thing.. but his "Jetstared ego" is threatening the existence of "Qantas pilots jobs!"

What pis_es me off more, the current mini CEO of Q Int, who so far has done nothing for the cause that I can see other than go along with whatever Joyce wants, so what's the point of his existence other than a good example of an unnecessary layer, a "list manager" if you like who was born from a "holy created bean counter division" Frequent Flyers, again off the back of brand Qantas, yes it creates money which should always go directly back into QF! The question is, does it?

Qantas group is top heavy with bean counter types, way too many of them, who appear to not have a clue about the core business, Qantas. So what do they do? The usual, they blame the operational staff costing too much, been there done that too many times now, no sole... Won't be long until one of these MBA types arranges to install coin operated tugs for push-back, The T&C's will be amended to read "ground staff to kick the tin," the suit gets the bonus.

Last edited by TIMA9X; 17th Dec 2013 at 15:59.
TIMA9X is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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