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

[TIMA9X]

Maybe Alan should do as Rob Fyfe did, and actually gets out of his
bubble, and talk to some front line staff for a change!

He thinks he is too busy? Probably why he has three CEO's (two of which are invisible) and needs a lawyer close by to assist him with his "selective amnesia" problem. He appears to be crystal clear on some things he said in the past, but draws a blank on other more important things he said in the past.

I cut this video down to Nick X's questions from last week's senate inquiry, (before news 231/2 cut to another story) re the Qantas International fleet, which I believe Gareth Evans gave a conflicting answer to what Joyce said on the issue..

I'm first to admit that I don't understand accounting jargon, for example the term PNL as against cash, which are apparently very different, well according to Joyce anyway. For me PNL is short for Panel, and cash is a good resource to buy a panel should you require one.. I guess if an accountant decides to redirect this generated cash to another cause you end up with not enough money to purchase that panel you require to fix your problem.

I'm sure there are much smarter guys on here than I am, who could explain to me what Joyce and Evans are on about.

Anyway, what struck me about Nick X's questions regarding the Qantas International fleet was Joyce said the International business generates cash, but not enough to reinvest in a new fleet.. Evans said Qantas International will require investment in the future... Joyce was negative, but Evans was positive about the same issue... go figure I said to myself.. Does this mean there is no money in the tin for the Qantas International fleet?

ALAN JOYCE: But you don't know the route profitability of Qantas. And can I tell you that every route that's left generates cash for us.

Background for Nick X's questions

Qantas The Reporting Seasons 2011 to 2014 - YouTube

Qantas chief gives no guarantees on keeping jobs in Australia - 27/02/2014

Today's Sunday, so if you have some time, I hope the above video links help you all to understand the last few confusing years a little better.. so many mixed messages.

full audio only here senate inquiry..

http://youtu.be/y5NZA7WJc1k
.

[SIUYA]

TIMA9X...

The answers were all very confusing to me as well, but I think he said P&L and not PNL.

[V-Jet]

As per my double post, I saw the financial discussion as more confusion and obfuscating at the top. I just don't see any evidence of a coherent direction. Joyce had henchmen(ettes) there to deflect and filibuster. A CEO should be able to provide clear, concise and direct answers to almost any question, especially when answers (from experience) are not really required - especially in any detail. He likes to appear the big man and be centre of attention (endless chatterer) yet uses his underlings as stage props. You dont see Steve or Nathan deflect questions to a phalanx of minions - and far more is at stake for them with innaccuracies!

He needs to be properly questioned by an expert about what his vision for Qantas is. I dont think he has one, I think the whole lot of them dream up plans on the back of expensive menus at Rockpool.

5000 people in addition to all the others are losing their jobs to what end, specifically?

There is no plan. And as for the Emperors Clothes, I dont even think he knows what a tailor is.

[Qantas 787]

Hickey made an appearance at that update in the Street a few weeks ago - it was embarrassing. He stumbled through it, clearly had to memorise his 'lines'. Looked so out of his depth - at least Strambi could talk confidently

With Hickey in charge, it is no wonder INTL continues its downhill slide

[Shark Patrol]

The tactic used by the QF Group execs seemed to be to try to answer as many questions as possible with excessive verbiage or detail to either confuse the senators (which I don't think would have been very hard) or to reveal the true "difficulties" facing them.

The two things they were talking about here were "P&L" - profit and loss - versus cash flow. What Evans was saying was that the routes still being flown by QF International are cash flow positive (meaning the flights are making money), but that QF International are doing badly on profit and loss. So, by extrapolation, the flights are making some profit, but not enough to counter the losses that are being made elsewhere - maintenance costs or labour costs, by inference. What the senators weren't cluey enough to ask was where QF International was losing money and whether Jetstar cost-shifting was taking place.

Personally, I would love the Senate Committee to recommend to Parliament that a forensic audit be conducted on the QF accounts prior to a decision being made as to whether assistance should be offered!

[Mstr Caution]

Shark patrol.

Totally agree with a Forensic Audit.

Even the lowest level of managers need a business plan to change anything with the business.

Heck. They just about need a business plan to decide between a Latte or some cool aid for morning tea.

The senate should be saying "What's the business plan if we amend the QSA?"

Joyce has a plan, but he just hasn't shared it.

No palatable plan, no changes to the QSA.

Otherwise its like giving Joyce blank cheques.

MC

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Forensic accounting audit?

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but has any one called, written, emailed MPs or Senators asking for just that?

If this little fella and his mates manage to fool the Senators, at least I can say I had a crack. I'll go down swinging, how about you?

[Variable Incidence]

Forensic accounting audit?

You're not going to get one. The Govt. is not in the business of doing forensic audits on publicly listed Companies. Yes, we'd all like for there to be one. It's wishful thinking though, that is all.

If the govt. was going to give a loan or loan guarantee of some sort then perhaps they might have had a really close look at the books, but as they aren't going to do that at this point in time there will be no forensic audit.

Unless the major institutional investors are finally convinced that AJ and Co are clueless and get rid of him and the board Qantas is f*&%$d!, unless of course you subscribe to the conspiracy theory that he is doing what the Instos want!!

More probable though is that he's out of his depth, the rest of the Board don't have a clue, the Polies are mostly useless oxygen thiefs and the Instos simply don't care; its not their money at risk anyway. They always win!

[CaptCloudbuster]

From the ALAEA Senate submission

Often when an aircraft returned to Australia after offshore maintenance was carried out major maintenance errors were discovered, documented and occasionally forwarded to the ALAEA. In this submission we will present some of that documented evidence. We will not submit any matter that is not able to be fully substantiated.

In October 2008 Qantas 747-400 VH-OJG underwent a “D” check at the facility. Seven weeks after the maintenance was completed, Qantas Engineers replacing a part in the wing strut observed a discrepancy with the mounting of an aircraft engine. The other engines of the aircraft were subsequently checked and noted to have the similar mounting issue as found on the initial engine.

Three of the four engines were not held on properly. If any one of these engines had fallen off during flight a most likely outcome would have been the loss of the aircraft.

CASA's reply

But CASA spokesman Peter Gibson told the inquiry that Mr Purvinas's account of the defect was not correct.

"As it turned out, it was one washer on one bolt on one engine that had been incorrectly installed. And naturally that shouldn't happen, but that's the scope of what it was," he said.

Who is lying?

CASA or the ALAEA

It's now or never Steve Purvinas. The credibility of you and your organisation is on the line.

Let's see the proof.

[ratpoison]

Unbelievable these "people". Money.....who said it's about the money

Jayne AKA Carla Hrdlicka

Carla Hrdlicka: Executive Profile & Biography - Businessweek


Joyce:

Alan Joyce: Executive Profile & Biography - Businessweek

Evans:

Gareth Evans: Executive Profile & Biography - Businessweek

[blueloo]

CaptCloudbuster

Let's see the proof.

If you go back a few posts, Steve put a link to the government website with all documents with the proof. You can download them all. It makes for interesting reading.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Shark Patrol

The tactic used by the QF Group execs seemed to be to try to answer as many questions as possible with excessive verbiage or detail to either confuse the senators (which I don't think would have been very hard) or to reveal the true "difficulties" facing them.

The Senators wouldn't have seen anything out of the ordinary in the answers, those very Senators use exactly the same methodology themselves so to them they would have seen Joyce as being as frank with his answers as they are when asked questions and as such they would think it perfectly normal behaviour. Qantas has more than a few remnants of its public service past...

Originally Posted by Shark Patrol

The two things they were talking about here were "P&L" - profit and loss - versus cash flow. What Evans was saying was that the routes still being flown by QF International are cash flow positive (meaning the flights are making money), but that QF International are doing badly on profit and loss. So, by extrapolation, the flights are making some profit, but not enough to counter the losses that are being made elsewhere - maintenance costs or labour costs, by inference. What the senators weren't cluey enough to ask was where QF International was losing money and whether Jetstar cost-shifting was taking place.

One of the amusing things that I often have debates with senior management about if fixed cost (costs that are going to occur regardless of products made or routes flown) vs marginal cost (costs associated with actually making and/or selling that product or flying that route). The former is often known as overhead (lease costs, capital costs, etc), the latter is what it takes to actually undertake the specific route (fuel, catering, landing fees, etc).

All too often some accountant has shown that a product or route profitable and should be cut.

What is often not recognised is the impact that has on the fixed cost equation. Cutting the routes gives a smaller network to amortise the fixed costs across, you still have to pay all of those it's just now that you spread them over fewer routes.

And then some genius accountant runs the numbers again and finds - SURPRISE - that more routes are unprofitable. So they cut those. And then they wonder why even the routes with high load factors don't work profitably and the whole thing shuts down.

I'm not saying that Qantas are going down that route but in a business that is heavily capital intensive (plane lease costs, skilled staff, etc) every route you cut means less routes earning income to cover those costs. Retiring older aircraft cuts back some costs but those aircraft are possibly paid off anyway, redundancies always follow and another set of accountants are advising that the ratio of cost:income is going up because whilst the company is cutting marginal cost items they still have their fixed cost base.

Qantas is the very definition of a scalar business, they need scale to spread their costs over, they cannot shrink their way to profitability no matter what they think.

Originally Posted by Shark Patrol

Personally, I would love the Senate Committee to recommend to Parliament that a forensic audit be conducted on the QF accounts prior to a decision being made as to whether assistance should be offered!

The answer should be simple. No assistance. Qantas got a massive leg up when privatised in the form of multi billions of dollars (in today's money) of debt forgiveness, if they've wasted that position then let them go under if they cannot turn it around. Excise the business you can't make profitable and sell your alliance to the QF domestic network very very dearly, it doesn't really cost very much.

In short: fix it or flog it and the shareholders will judge you on your performance.

[73to91]

Neighbor gave me the latest QF News (it really is a propaganda thing these days isn't it?). Anyway interested to see the Group Org Chart in the middle and was surprised by a few things:

Audit & Risk as well as General Counsel & Company Secretary both come under Scriven (HR & Office of CEO) - thought it may come under Evans (CFO)

No 'Head of Safety' although there is EM Safety & Health (Tim Jenkins) under Scriven - what happened to http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ad-safety.html

Under Hickey there is 'Head of One Service Team' what is that?
Also under Hickey there is 'Head on Intnl & Domestic Workforce Planning' what do they do? Can understand why the 'planning' wouldn't come under Scriven but you have the Intnl guy responsible for Domestic as well !!

Under Hrdlicka there's EM Network, Planning & Strategy and surprise surprise, no such role under Hickey.

So, AJ has 8 direct reports, those 8 have 52 direct reports between them, what is the next level like?

[dubbleyew eight]

I've worked with some "ever so bright" people in my time.
when they were cooking they were the brightest of the brightest.
but when they weren't cooking they were barely able to function.
interestingly all were eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder. the old manic depression as it was known in days of old.

when I watch videos of AJ in action I wonder when the diagnosis will come.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Now if the engines that weren't bolted on correctly in Hkg were reported properly to CASA under the mandatory Service Difficulty Reporting scheme they would know that 3 of the 4 engines weren't attached correctly.


Instead, Qantas employ morons to sit in offices and override SDR reports made by LAMEs and stamp them all - NOT AN AIRWORTHINESS ISSUE.


Of course we can substantiate the reports. Glad CASA popped their little heads up. It will just open up a raft of new questions.

[BP2197]

.......................

[BP2197]

Loving the F1 this afternoon with the endless pursuit for perfection. The use of data to make decisions to get the ultimate level of performance for the system is the only way to ultimate success. Whether you are mgmt staff or union representative I can only encourage you to think about how we all work together and the use of data to seperate fact from fiction. Qantas can be successful if we work to eliminate waste and provide the best customer service, just like winning a GP.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

So this is what the Qantas/CASA representative says to the ABC -


"As it turned out, it was one washer on one bolt on one engine that had been incorrectly installed. And naturally that shouldn't happen, but that's the scope of what it was," he said.

Then wtf did I get this in a letter from the ATSB at the time as a response to them from CASA about the problems on 3 engines? It was then published in the Flight Safety magazine.

[V-Jet]

Sorry if I sound obtuse Fed Sec, but you are saying:
- 3 of 4 engines were not correctly fitted on one aircraft (B744).
- Qantas deemed it 'NOT AN AIRWORTHINESS ISSUE' and HKG simply didn't report to CASA, so CASA simply didn't know.
- CASA did receive a report saying the Mount Bolts on a 'couple of engines' were only fitted with one instead of two washers but this is not a maintenance issue.
- CASA also received a report that on one engine 3 Mount Bolts were fitted with upside down washers, that were also deemed not to be an issue.

So the primary issue is that 3 of 4 Engines were installed in an unsafe manner, but it was not reported correctly, nor understood/recognised by Qantas to be a significant issue?

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

You got it. 3 of 4 engines not bolted on correctly and casa say it is not an airworthiness issue. They then lied again on Sat by saying it was only one missing washer on one engine.