MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who are The Motley Fools......?
Alan and the board !!!
According to The Motley Fool investment adviser....
Source: Motley Fool
"JP Morgan says the 'Flying Kangaroo' will continue to rack up losses until 2016.
That's hardly surprising.
Regular readers will know we aren't overly keen on airline stocks, for many reasons.
Those include being subject to too many issues beyond the control of management such as accidents, plane defects, poor weather, a unionised workforce, booking software issues, terrorism, exchange rates, interest rates and the global price for fuel.
Add in the high costs of said planes, the capital intensive nature of the industry and the resultant high debt levels, no competitive advantage and the fact airlines sell a commodity product -- with the winner offering the lowest priced ticket -- and management have an almost impossible job of keeping the airline in the sky.
The national icon is said to be looking at asset sales and could sell its Freight division, according to the Australian Financial Review. A float of the Qantas frequent flyer program could also be on the cards – with the division among its most profitable, and estimated to be worth up to $3 billion.
Qantas -- you are selling the wrong assets!
Selling off assets is a temporary reprieve at best... unless they could sell off the airline itself. Only problem there is a lack of willing buyers!
JP Morgan now says that debt reduction strategies will have little impact on the company's "current difficult operating environment."
Current difficult operating environment? Try permanent. If someone can tell me how Qantas' operating environment ever improves, I'm all ears.
Qantas shares have dropped 30% in the past twelve months and are down a massive 85% since their $6 high in 2007. But the stock could easily go lower from here.
As we said in October last year, avoiding the market's potholes is key to generating decent long-term returns.
Qantas, sadly, is one of those potholes."
Well, I think we all knew this, but the "red flags" are flying from investment advice web sites such as this one, and this is further bad news backed up by the comment from JP Morgan (20th Jan)
According to The Motley Fool investment adviser....
Source: Motley Fool
"JP Morgan says the 'Flying Kangaroo' will continue to rack up losses until 2016.
That's hardly surprising.
Regular readers will know we aren't overly keen on airline stocks, for many reasons.
Those include being subject to too many issues beyond the control of management such as accidents, plane defects, poor weather, a unionised workforce, booking software issues, terrorism, exchange rates, interest rates and the global price for fuel.
Add in the high costs of said planes, the capital intensive nature of the industry and the resultant high debt levels, no competitive advantage and the fact airlines sell a commodity product -- with the winner offering the lowest priced ticket -- and management have an almost impossible job of keeping the airline in the sky.
The national icon is said to be looking at asset sales and could sell its Freight division, according to the Australian Financial Review. A float of the Qantas frequent flyer program could also be on the cards – with the division among its most profitable, and estimated to be worth up to $3 billion.
Qantas -- you are selling the wrong assets!
Selling off assets is a temporary reprieve at best... unless they could sell off the airline itself. Only problem there is a lack of willing buyers!
JP Morgan now says that debt reduction strategies will have little impact on the company's "current difficult operating environment."
Current difficult operating environment? Try permanent. If someone can tell me how Qantas' operating environment ever improves, I'm all ears.
Qantas shares have dropped 30% in the past twelve months and are down a massive 85% since their $6 high in 2007. But the stock could easily go lower from here.
As we said in October last year, avoiding the market's potholes is key to generating decent long-term returns.
Qantas, sadly, is one of those potholes."
Well, I think we all knew this, but the "red flags" are flying from investment advice web sites such as this one, and this is further bad news backed up by the comment from JP Morgan (20th Jan)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hands up if this surprises anyone.....
From the ABC
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has described the decision as a "defining point" for the future of government assistance.
"I think it is a clear delineation of where this Government believes we need to go with industry policy," Mr Macfarlane said.
Mr Abbott has urged the company to renegotiate its workplace agreement, saying some aspects are "extremely generous" and need to be changed.
"The existing agreement contains conditions and provisions which are well in excess of the award," Mr Abbott said, pointing to the redundancy and sick leave provisions.
"This does need to be very extensively renegotiated if this restructure is to be completed.
"As SPC and Coca-Cola go about this renegotiation, they'll certainly have the support of government in doing so."
Ahhhh, what happened to the recent precedential breach of the Fair Work Act??????
Ahhhh, sh!t happens doesn't it, anyway, we wont give you any monetary assistance but we will help you nail the workers......
It may be timely to remind ourselves, a 3% p.a increase in remuneration is a real world pay freeze and ultimately a cut in Australia. Most Australians have had there wages frozen in real world terms since Howard was a boy.
Here they come............
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has described the decision as a "defining point" for the future of government assistance.
"I think it is a clear delineation of where this Government believes we need to go with industry policy," Mr Macfarlane said.
Mr Abbott has urged the company to renegotiate its workplace agreement, saying some aspects are "extremely generous" and need to be changed.
"The existing agreement contains conditions and provisions which are well in excess of the award," Mr Abbott said, pointing to the redundancy and sick leave provisions.
"This does need to be very extensively renegotiated if this restructure is to be completed.
"As SPC and Coca-Cola go about this renegotiation, they'll certainly have the support of government in doing so."
Ahhhh, what happened to the recent precedential breach of the Fair Work Act??????
Ahhhh, sh!t happens doesn't it, anyway, we wont give you any monetary assistance but we will help you nail the workers......
It may be timely to remind ourselves, a 3% p.a increase in remuneration is a real world pay freeze and ultimately a cut in Australia. Most Australians have had there wages frozen in real world terms since Howard was a boy.
Here they come............
Last edited by Acute Instinct; 31st Jan 2014 at 08:30.
Originally Posted by DrPepz
.... but QF never did cancel any Europe flights when they operated via SIN.
Work Choices by stealth
Before the election Labor claimed (shrilly, I thought at the time) that Abbott would re-institute a form of Work Choices. After Howard was dumped for W.C. I am astonished that the current government could be so tone deaf as to even opine on worker's pay and conditions.
I am glad that Coca-Cola is going to miss some of my tax dollars, but I am less than amused at this re-visiting of awards. I hope the unions require full forensic accounting and get to make public all salary, bonuses, expenses and other considerations of every board member, executive, manager etc.
As far as the twats that continue to claim that Australian airline employees are too generously paid...get out more and see what other airlines pay compared to what their tax rates and cost of living are. This is a high-cost country so living wages need to be correspondingly non-trivial.
And the fact that Jetstar pays less should not then define a new benchmark. Cobham pays less: should their rates become the new normal? I once flew (very briefly) with a guy who volunteered that he would do it for free. If they could only find another 1,600 like HIM we could all get some sleep.
I am glad that Coca-Cola is going to miss some of my tax dollars, but I am less than amused at this re-visiting of awards. I hope the unions require full forensic accounting and get to make public all salary, bonuses, expenses and other considerations of every board member, executive, manager etc.
As far as the twats that continue to claim that Australian airline employees are too generously paid...get out more and see what other airlines pay compared to what their tax rates and cost of living are. This is a high-cost country so living wages need to be correspondingly non-trivial.
And the fact that Jetstar pays less should not then define a new benchmark. Cobham pays less: should their rates become the new normal? I once flew (very briefly) with a guy who volunteered that he would do it for free. If they could only find another 1,600 like HIM we could all get some sleep.
Last edited by Australopithecus; 30th Jan 2014 at 22:17.
Qantas is being managed for the benefit of the MAJOR shareholders who hide behind nominee companies..and the major shareholders are New York based hedge funds - which is why the Board took its little trip.
Those guys are trying to extract the value from the company and award it to themselves. They tried once with the APA bid. They are now trying to drive the price down and frighten out the little guys, then take the business private. That is the reason the Board puts up with Alan - he is supposed to make it fail. Borghetti wouldn't agree to do that.
Of course what these guys didn't expect was that Alan is even stupider than they thought. He was supposed to sicken the company on their behalf, not kill it.
To put that another way, the folks behind the nominee walls are not benign passive fat and happy Australian super funds, they are Wall street sharks who don't give a toss about Australia.
Those guys are trying to extract the value from the company and award it to themselves. They tried once with the APA bid. They are now trying to drive the price down and frighten out the little guys, then take the business private. That is the reason the Board puts up with Alan - he is supposed to make it fail. Borghetti wouldn't agree to do that.
Of course what these guys didn't expect was that Alan is even stupider than they thought. He was supposed to sicken the company on their behalf, not kill it.
To put that another way, the folks behind the nominee walls are not benign passive fat and happy Australian super funds, they are Wall street sharks who don't give a toss about Australia.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas is being managed for the benefit of the MAJOR shareholders who hide behind nominee companies..and the major shareholders are New York based hedge funds - which is why the Board took its little trip.
Those guys are trying to extract the value from the company and award it to themselves. They tried once with the APA bid. They are now trying to drive the price down and frighten out the little guys, then take the business private. That is the reason the Board puts up with Alan - he is supposed to make it fail. Borghetti wouldn't agree to do that.
Of course what these guys didn't expect was that Alan is even stupider than they thought. He was supposed to sicken the company on their behalf, not kill it.
To put that another way, the folks behind the nominee walls are not benign passive fat and happy Australian super funds, they are Wall street sharks who don't give a toss about Australia.
Those guys are trying to extract the value from the company and award it to themselves. They tried once with the APA bid. They are now trying to drive the price down and frighten out the little guys, then take the business private. That is the reason the Board puts up with Alan - he is supposed to make it fail. Borghetti wouldn't agree to do that.
Of course what these guys didn't expect was that Alan is even stupider than they thought. He was supposed to sicken the company on their behalf, not kill it.
To put that another way, the folks behind the nominee walls are not benign passive fat and happy Australian super funds, they are Wall street sharks who don't give a toss about Australia.
Groundhog day as Xenophon again turns up heat on Qantas
Xenaphon's continued criticism is well foundered but are the directors obliged to reply? Is this the way corporate Australia behaves generally or are we just incredibly lucky at Qantas? Sunfish do you really believe some New York hedge funds are that smart to muck around with a relatively small Aussie company? Perhaps they're not that smart either judging by how much their paper loss is and how it's apparent that the share price will never recover to the giddy prices of over 5 Bucks a share! For many years the staff at Qantas have known just how ineptly the company has been run and yet nobody was listening until now. The question remains though, how much longer do we have to endure the Clifford/Joyce era that will surely go down as the worst period in Qantas' great history. The two will dig in never to admit failure or defeat and Qantas will continue to decline and suffer a slow painful death.
Xenaphon's continued criticism is well foundered but are the directors obliged to reply? Is this the way corporate Australia behaves generally or are we just incredibly lucky at Qantas? Sunfish do you really believe some New York hedge funds are that smart to muck around with a relatively small Aussie company? Perhaps they're not that smart either judging by how much their paper loss is and how it's apparent that the share price will never recover to the giddy prices of over 5 Bucks a share! For many years the staff at Qantas have known just how ineptly the company has been run and yet nobody was listening until now. The question remains though, how much longer do we have to endure the Clifford/Joyce era that will surely go down as the worst period in Qantas' great history. The two will dig in never to admit failure or defeat and Qantas will continue to decline and suffer a slow painful death.
Ben Sandiland's Plane Talking blog today has a neat comparison between Qantas and Virgin. "The only difference in foreign influence over the affairs of Virgin and Qantas today appears to be that the former has foreign owners who have no control but have given it money, while the latter in its relationship with Emirates, has ceded control over half a world of connections for which it has received no money."
Happyfarm:
It is not a hard concept to understand at all, and I am sure we all get the "law of the jungle" aspect to corporate life. What is a very hard pill to swallow is when a CEO deliberately places a company in a non-viable position, siphons the profits off to his mates, lies to all and sundry, creates a paper trail so complex that no one can prove where the money went, fvcks the livelihoods of an entire company and then cries poor with the requisite request for a government bailout. In years to come, the brazen rape of Qantas will become a thing of folklore and everyone will wonder "how was it allowed to happen".
That is more akin to a sacrificial offering than, corporate reality.
It is not a hard concept to understand at all, and I am sure we all get the "law of the jungle" aspect to corporate life. What is a very hard pill to swallow is when a CEO deliberately places a company in a non-viable position, siphons the profits off to his mates, lies to all and sundry, creates a paper trail so complex that no one can prove where the money went, fvcks the livelihoods of an entire company and then cries poor with the requisite request for a government bailout. In years to come, the brazen rape of Qantas will become a thing of folklore and everyone will wonder "how was it allowed to happen".
That is more akin to a sacrificial offering than, corporate reality.
Those guys are trying to extract the value from the company and award it to themselves. They tried once with the APA bid. They are now trying to drive the price down and frighten out the little guys, then take the business private. That is the reason the Board puts up with Alan - he is supposed to make it fail. Borghetti wouldn't agree to do that.
Alan and the board have employed a strategic direction which they believe will be successful. Unfortunately they are hopelessly incompetent, it's nothing more than that. They will not waver in their own beliefs and just ask a few former senior executives what happens when you question the strategy, even though the strategy is constantly changing. They take a punt on a thought bubble and are forced to double down when it fails.
I have been told that some big funds have been making a lot of money from derivative trading the stock. They make money whether the share price goes up or down and are happy to have the current management who through nothing more than incompetence, maintain volatility in the stock; and volatility creates opportunity for clever people to make a killing.
While I get as incited as the next bloke at the spectre of criminal intent it is true that you should never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
The board seem to be blinded by a mixture of MBA think and anti-labour ideology. The executive seem to be mesmerised by their own IQ scores, unable to critically analyse their own behaviour.
They need a good CRM course!
I used to think that there was a larger, hidden game. Now I think, like "The The", that there are plenty of people trading the fizz created by these clowns. Qantas shares may in fact simply be a vehicle for shearing the sheep over and over...its the gift that keeps on giving.
I'd like to see James Strong brought back: there are worse CEO attributes than being dead.
The board seem to be blinded by a mixture of MBA think and anti-labour ideology. The executive seem to be mesmerised by their own IQ scores, unable to critically analyse their own behaviour.
They need a good CRM course!
I used to think that there was a larger, hidden game. Now I think, like "The The", that there are plenty of people trading the fizz created by these clowns. Qantas shares may in fact simply be a vehicle for shearing the sheep over and over...its the gift that keeps on giving.
I'd like to see James Strong brought back: there are worse CEO attributes than being dead.
Corporate ADHD
I have read a few books about management lately, and psychopaths in the executive suite. (Try "Crazy Bosses" by Stanley Bing). I wonder if management succumbs to "small job" sydrome? That the plebian day-to-day business of running an enterprise is beneath their finely honed skills and unique insights?
The entrepraneurial urge drives people to create new businesses, seek new horizons. It is what drives progress according to the cliché merchants. I expect that a lot of these various ventures offshore (NOT unique to Qantas by any means) are simply evidence of either burning creative juices or boredom?
Brokers and CEOs all have to create churn to assure high pay...either comissions or bonuses based on what amounts to log-rolling: lots of activity for no real gains.
When QF was at its prime it could have been managed by one small team with a strategic vision to prepare the company for future crises and a management team to handle the day to day administration of fleet and route planning and staff. New routes could have been added incrementally, frequencies optimised and fleets planned rationally. None of those boring things were done...I guess management was too busy being seduced by the siren song of a pan-Asian adventure.
I am reminded of one of those Warren Buffet aphorisms: stick to the knitting.
Anyone game to buy shares right now on the expectation that Joyce can delight the market in February?
The entrepraneurial urge drives people to create new businesses, seek new horizons. It is what drives progress according to the cliché merchants. I expect that a lot of these various ventures offshore (NOT unique to Qantas by any means) are simply evidence of either burning creative juices or boredom?
Brokers and CEOs all have to create churn to assure high pay...either comissions or bonuses based on what amounts to log-rolling: lots of activity for no real gains.
When QF was at its prime it could have been managed by one small team with a strategic vision to prepare the company for future crises and a management team to handle the day to day administration of fleet and route planning and staff. New routes could have been added incrementally, frequencies optimised and fleets planned rationally. None of those boring things were done...I guess management was too busy being seduced by the siren song of a pan-Asian adventure.
I am reminded of one of those Warren Buffet aphorisms: stick to the knitting.
Anyone game to buy shares right now on the expectation that Joyce can delight the market in February?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Downunder
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Certain 717 Operator
There's a rumour blowing around that the "new" 717s don't have the guts to get up off the ground above 34 deg c in CBR due to heat and elevation and they can't change the chip in the engine like they can with the older MD's due to the contract! In summer 34 is a good day!
is this true? who review's the contracts?
i thought management were supposed to review these sorts of things so that they can make top dollar out of every flight? isn't that the aim of the game?
is this true? who review's the contracts?
i thought management were supposed to review these sorts of things so that they can make top dollar out of every flight? isn't that the aim of the game?
Australopithicus:
I know, but consistently hopeless management and one failed takeover attempt, one aborted, the promotion of Joyce over Borghetti, the alliance with Emirates and the Asian ventures stretch my credulity
Thethe:
close but no cigar. Ever heard of naked short selling, puts and calls? Naked shorting is an artistic form of corporate rape practiced on Wall Street. For all you know, there is a billion or Two rding on getting Qantas down to Fifty cents. Its much easier and faster to make money that way. Qantas is easily big enough to be a hedge fund toy and it doesnt have the resources or the skills to take on a real predator like Carl Icahn..
troo believer:
see what I wrote above, Then go to the link below. Guys like these would kill Qantas jut to win a bet. They do it all the time. Australian regulator? Wouldn't have a clue.
Michael Milken, 60,000 Deaths, and the Story of Dendreon (Chapter 1 of 15) | Deep Capture
While I get as incited as the next bloke at the spectre of criminal intent it is true that you should never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
Thethe:
Utter conspiracy theory rubbish!
Alan and the board have employed a strategic direction which they believe will be successful. Unfortunately they are hopelessly incompetent, it's nothing more than that. They will not waver in their own beliefs and just ask a few former senior executives what happens when you question the strategy, even though the strategy is constantly changing. They take a punt on a thought bubble and are forced to double down when it fails.
I have been told that some big funds have been making a lot of money from derivative trading the stock. They make money whether the share price goes up or down and are happy to have the current management who through nothing more than incompetence, maintain volatility in the stock; and volatility creates opportunity for clever people to make a killing.
Alan and the board have employed a strategic direction which they believe will be successful. Unfortunately they are hopelessly incompetent, it's nothing more than that. They will not waver in their own beliefs and just ask a few former senior executives what happens when you question the strategy, even though the strategy is constantly changing. They take a punt on a thought bubble and are forced to double down when it fails.
I have been told that some big funds have been making a lot of money from derivative trading the stock. They make money whether the share price goes up or down and are happy to have the current management who through nothing more than incompetence, maintain volatility in the stock; and volatility creates opportunity for clever people to make a killing.
troo believer:
Sunfish do you really believe some New York hedge funds are that smart to muck around with a relatively small Aussie company? Perhaps they're not that smart either judging by how much their paper loss is and how it's apparent that the share price will never recover to the giddy prices of over 5 Bucks a share! For many years the staff at Qantas have known just how ineptly the company has been run and yet nobody was listening until now.
Michael Milken, 60,000 Deaths, and the Story of Dendreon (Chapter 1 of 15) | Deep Capture
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Webber was/is a massive loss to the big Q. He was ridiculously intelligent and could even make economics fun. He is humble and quick to praise good work. The company is short many many good analysts and advisers like him to enable it to make good business decisions based on data rather than perception.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That shows from his eloquent response...which was basically you are a bunch of liars and I am going to call you out.
Not much will happen because the rot comes from the top but one day this will all tumble down and people like him will be important. Meanwhile I am waiting for another Rockpool lunch and the spin machine to kick into gear for the predictable official line from these tossers.
Not much will happen because the rot comes from the top but one day this will all tumble down and people like him will be important. Meanwhile I am waiting for another Rockpool lunch and the spin machine to kick into gear for the predictable official line from these tossers.
Like so many other former Qantas employees, Tony Webber was an intelligent person with some significant understanding of why Qantas had been a successful airline.
The current Qantas management could not afford someone who may dispute the path chosen by the Joyce/Clifford dictators.
I would argue there are no managers left at Qantas with previous experience at genuinely successful airlines (including Qantas when it was), as that is considered irrelevant to the current executive.
The current Qantas management could not afford someone who may dispute the path chosen by the Joyce/Clifford dictators.
I would argue there are no managers left at Qantas with previous experience at genuinely successful airlines (including Qantas when it was), as that is considered irrelevant to the current executive.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Font
THE federal government's reluctance to subsidise jobs and industries is a smokescreen for cuts to wages and conditions, the Australian Council of Trade Unions says.
Employment Minister Eric Abetz defended the government's decision to leave SPC to its own devices with the backing of parent company CCA.
"What they need to do is have a look at some of their cost structures and help themselves," Senator Abetz told the ABC. He maintained that some conditions in the SPC enterprise agreement are "over-generous" and dated and should be addressed. "At the end of the day, that is the company's responsibility, the unions' and the workers' responsibility to come together to make sure that this enterprise can succeed," he said.
Source: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
"What they need to do is have a look at some of their cost structures and help themselves," Senator Abetz told the ABC. He maintained that some conditions in the SPC enterprise agreement are "over-generous" and dated and should be addressed. "At the end of the day, that is the company's responsibility, the unions' and the workers' responsibility to come together to make sure that this enterprise can succeed," he said.
Source: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Without some lateral thinking and flexibility all round, really can’t see the long run outcome at Qantas being substantially different.
And what a national disgrace that would be.
Last edited by LondonSloop; 2nd Feb 2014 at 00:36.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 54
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coaliton defends taxpayer funding of Cadbury
Let’s not be so quick to give up on Government intervention.
Read more: Aid and Abetz: Coaliton defends taxpayer funding of Cadbury
If both sides of the House would put Qantas and Australia ahead of politics, we would all be better off.
Employment Minister Eric Abetz has defended the Coalition's decision to provide chocolate company Cadbury with $16 million of taxpayer's money in the wake of its rejection of SPC Ardmona's bid for government assistance, arguing the Cadbury funds will be good for regional tourism in Tasmania.
If both sides of the House would put Qantas and Australia ahead of politics, we would all be better off.