MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hunter Valley NSW
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH Cheer Up. For a start they don't have unions. Imagine fronting some Sheik with demands. You would end up with the same fate as the cattle, and not stunned first. Two, they are not exactly short of fuel, just drill another hole if need be. The day the Arab airlines go broke, is the day we can all retire into a hole, and stay there.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone please alert Alan Joyce that the company most working in favour of Singapore's interests is none other than his very own company? By continually pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into Jetstar Asia, he is bringing untold number of tourists into Singapore while running a loss making outfit. By transferring flights from JQ to 3K, he is creating many jobs in Singapore (though on my last 3K flight the flight crew and cabin crew were mostly non locals). So when Alan Joyce says that Virgin Australia is working in the interests of Singapore, Abu Dhabi and New Zealand:
Qantas has Jetconnect which employs Kiwis and creates jobs there
Qantas funnels all its pax to Dubai strengthening them as an air hub
Qantas invests hundreds of millions in Jetstar Asia, creating many jobs in the Singapore economy and employing many Singaporeans.
As a Singaporean taxpayer, from my point of view, SQ is taking money out of Singapore and throwing it at Virgin Australia, unsure of whether it will get any returns. Qantas however, is taking money out of Australia and merrily investing it in Singapore without any returns but at great benefit to the local economy. I should thank QF on behalf of my country for the great service they have done to our nation, expecting absolutely nothing in return!
Qantas has Jetconnect which employs Kiwis and creates jobs there
Qantas funnels all its pax to Dubai strengthening them as an air hub
Qantas invests hundreds of millions in Jetstar Asia, creating many jobs in the Singapore economy and employing many Singaporeans.
As a Singaporean taxpayer, from my point of view, SQ is taking money out of Singapore and throwing it at Virgin Australia, unsure of whether it will get any returns. Qantas however, is taking money out of Australia and merrily investing it in Singapore without any returns but at great benefit to the local economy. I should thank QF on behalf of my country for the great service they have done to our nation, expecting absolutely nothing in return!
short flights long nights
And I see that Jetstar is about to fly Melbourne-Tokyo. Why is Qantas not flying the route in it own right? Will high yield passangers be interested in what Jetstar laughingly calls Buisness Class?
The whole thing is a travesty.
The whole thing is a travesty.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF you wonder why some of our competitiors have such an advantage consider that SQ have a vastly different perspective which focus extensively on efficiency and productivity. Just a few examples:
-SQ acknowledges that they aren't a low cost country and have recently setup a heavy maintenance facility in the Philipines. High technical content tasks will still be done in SIN but less complex work makes sense even for them to offshore.
- SQ's catering processes are so good they can upload staff/duty travel meals to any aircraft in Changi with 45mins notice. Needless to say the catering for customers is spot on.
- Unions and management work together to ensure staff are working efficently. As all employees are eligible for incentive pay, it is within both parties interests to weed out dead wood. This also extends to sick leave where SQ have their own medical centre where employees must obtain their medical certificates. The great Aussie sickie doesn't pass too easily over there.
- SIAEC's culture is based around continuous improvement. Check out their website on the cultural tab. They all do the training which is referred to as productivity training.
- Remember 1980 when the SIN prime minister threatened shut the airline down and restart from scratch? Didn't know that? Alan's little stunt was actually copied from Singapore, which at the time clearly articulated that a small, resource devoid nation couldn't be held to ransom by any group and must be the most efficient operation in all industries which it wished to compete. The threat has been rolled out several times since but SQ have a sustainable business model.
These guys have been doing process and productivity improvement for a long time and we are very far behind. They work with the unions and at times make tough decisions for the betterment of the country. Yes this means less jobs but it also maintains the highest level of sustainable wages. It is a simple choice, focus extensively on the maximizing productivity to meet the customer needs or let someone else do it for us.
-SQ acknowledges that they aren't a low cost country and have recently setup a heavy maintenance facility in the Philipines. High technical content tasks will still be done in SIN but less complex work makes sense even for them to offshore.
- SQ's catering processes are so good they can upload staff/duty travel meals to any aircraft in Changi with 45mins notice. Needless to say the catering for customers is spot on.
- Unions and management work together to ensure staff are working efficently. As all employees are eligible for incentive pay, it is within both parties interests to weed out dead wood. This also extends to sick leave where SQ have their own medical centre where employees must obtain their medical certificates. The great Aussie sickie doesn't pass too easily over there.
- SIAEC's culture is based around continuous improvement. Check out their website on the cultural tab. They all do the training which is referred to as productivity training.
- Remember 1980 when the SIN prime minister threatened shut the airline down and restart from scratch? Didn't know that? Alan's little stunt was actually copied from Singapore, which at the time clearly articulated that a small, resource devoid nation couldn't be held to ransom by any group and must be the most efficient operation in all industries which it wished to compete. The threat has been rolled out several times since but SQ have a sustainable business model.
These guys have been doing process and productivity improvement for a long time and we are very far behind. They work with the unions and at times make tough decisions for the betterment of the country. Yes this means less jobs but it also maintains the highest level of sustainable wages. It is a simple choice, focus extensively on the maximizing productivity to meet the customer needs or let someone else do it for us.
I think that is the crux of the problem. I have no data to confirm or deny but the levels of ancillary staff per airframe would be a very enlightening figure to compare across many airlines and rate against qf numbers.
As would the average salary of ancillary staff numbers across other airlines vs qf.
As would the average salary of ancillary staff numbers across other airlines vs qf.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a sobering thought that so many large employers are finding the going so tough in Australia. Capital is relatively cheap (although rates are higher in Australia than almost everywhere else) but here we do have some of the most expensive workers in the world.
Top management salaries aren't the problem, they're just an irritant. It's the worker on 30% more than their counterpart in another country, times 10,000 workers in similar roles, that makes the workforce so costly.
It's a global marketplace and we need to either have an enormous point of difference that makes that 30% (or whatever) margin sustainable, or else we have to find some other, absolutely unique, business to be in.
In other words, we have to be competitive, or else operate in a market where we have no real competition.
We may rail against what we see as woeful management - we should, because it is woeful - but we need to have some options.
We can't all be fast bowlers. And there's only so much orange rock to dig up to sell to China.
Where else can we employ airline crew and customer service staff, car manufacturing and parts production workers in a competitive or monopolistic industry where Australia can take on the best in the world and win?
Ideas... Anyone? Bueller?
Top management salaries aren't the problem, they're just an irritant. It's the worker on 30% more than their counterpart in another country, times 10,000 workers in similar roles, that makes the workforce so costly.
It's a global marketplace and we need to either have an enormous point of difference that makes that 30% (or whatever) margin sustainable, or else we have to find some other, absolutely unique, business to be in.
In other words, we have to be competitive, or else operate in a market where we have no real competition.
We may rail against what we see as woeful management - we should, because it is woeful - but we need to have some options.
We can't all be fast bowlers. And there's only so much orange rock to dig up to sell to China.
Where else can we employ airline crew and customer service staff, car manufacturing and parts production workers in a competitive or monopolistic industry where Australia can take on the best in the world and win?
Ideas... Anyone? Bueller?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't let management off the hook. I don't think they understand that processes are there business and I don't think they know how to improve them. They have also given in to unions claims which aren't accompanied by productivity improvements.
Now is the time for unions to swap places and push mangagement for efficiency improvements to maintain capability and our industry. We can pay higher wages but we need to do the job better and more efficiently than the lower cost countries.
Now is the time for unions to swap places and push mangagement for efficiency improvements to maintain capability and our industry. We can pay higher wages but we need to do the job better and more efficiently than the lower cost countries.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIAEC
BP2197
Maybe SIA are clever and efficient, but I can assure you SIAEC are as clueless as QF management.
The only thing that makes them look good is abundant cheap labour and no unions.
Oh and they are good mates with CAAS.
Maybe SIA are clever and efficient, but I can assure you SIAEC are as clueless as QF management.
The only thing that makes them look good is abundant cheap labour and no unions.
Oh and they are good mates with CAAS.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 41,000'
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOPs - totally agree! Why not make this a QF route? If no one is flying this route any more, then surely there's a premium to pay for a direct service. My mind boggles...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SIAEC Philippines facility was set up to service Cebu Pacific. No SIA aircraft are sent there, all SIA aircraft are maintained in SIN. Based on the last SIA annual report, the 2012/2013 wages bill was S$500 mil for 6200 employees or S$80,000 per employee. Wouldn't exactly call that cheap.
The problem as I see it is that aviation like the car industry is a world industry. Most people in Australia are not directly pressured by the global realities. Take a tradie, locally employed or have their own ute and tools and never have to worry about their job being off shored. Most plumbers earn more than most pilots by a large margin and yet will probably fly with whomever is cheapest as an example. There are huge sections of our workforce who couldn't give a rats about the economic disadvantage we have by living in Australia. It's an expensive place to live in! But what happens to all those people who rely on others like ourselves when our jobs are off shored? The current debate about Holden closing down production by 2017 will be an indicator of how the Qantas debate will play out. Economic rationalism is fine if you're the winner but not the loser. The circulation of money earned at home primarily stays at home but when those earnings are transferred overseas the cash is lost within our economy. It's a downward spiral and ultimately everyone will suffer and the plumber will be glad to get a phone call and be reluctant to charge the $100 call out fee cause no one can no longer afford it whilst trying to compete on a level playing field.
Ultimately are we all prepared to sacrifice our way of life and standard of living so we can buy cheaper goods and services from overseas? That's the question we need to ask the politicians. Perhaps we could open up their jobs and those of the economic theorists to tender. It's always interesting that the tosses expounding the theory of economic forces are never at risk themselves.
Ultimately are we all prepared to sacrifice our way of life and standard of living so we can buy cheaper goods and services from overseas? That's the question we need to ask the politicians. Perhaps we could open up their jobs and those of the economic theorists to tender. It's always interesting that the tosses expounding the theory of economic forces are never at risk themselves.
Thread Starter
IF you wonder why some of our competitiors have such an advantage consider that SQ have a vastly different perspective which focus extensively on efficiency and productivity.
Employers and Employees pay much less tax
Singapore Airlines also has a very favorable depreciation scheduling over half of what it is in Australia
Their airport is run properly.
The fact they pay for the entire cost of their pilots training and still pay them alot of money relative to the local economy goes to show how much ahead of the game they are.
Singaporeans also get government assisted housing which means you can pay lower salaries as home ownership is achievable.....unlike Australia!
Pointing at Singapore is NOT the answer to QF's problem. The playing field in aviation is so heavily skewed against Australia it is bordering on ridiculous.
This also extends to sick leave where SQ have their own medical centre where employees must obtain their medical certificates. The great Aussie sickie doesn't pass too easily over there.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
neville_nobody: If labour law, a favourable tax regime and having a well run airport is what's needed then Jetstar Asia should be making oodles of money. They haven't ever made a real profit and the initial investment in the company will probably never ever be paid back.