300 Qantas pilots to get the chop ???
The only overpaid person at QF is the CEO. Any pilot that complains that other pilots are over paid is an idiot.
The don
The don
1/ QF Pilots on the 330 earn similar but slightly more than CX based Pilots
2/ A JQ friend training on the 330 boasted how he earned more than a CX based Pilot. ( me ) I said "maybe mate but you worked a **** load harder than me"
So based on that you could say that a JQ 330 Pilot must earn close to a QF 330 Pilot.?
This blaming the wages of QF Pilots for their companies woes is rubbish and a deliberate distraction to gain the publics support for yet another attack on Pilots T and C's Australia wide.
CX VA JQ NZ TT Managers all watch and compare notes with each other over a nice glass or two and I'm sure the grand plan continues.
2/ A JQ friend training on the 330 boasted how he earned more than a CX based Pilot. ( me ) I said "maybe mate but you worked a **** load harder than me"
So based on that you could say that a JQ 330 Pilot must earn close to a QF 330 Pilot.?
This blaming the wages of QF Pilots for their companies woes is rubbish and a deliberate distraction to gain the publics support for yet another attack on Pilots T and C's Australia wide.
CX VA JQ NZ TT Managers all watch and compare notes with each other over a nice glass or two and I'm sure the grand plan continues.
Remember after Sept 11 , Gordon Bethune immediately fired 20% of Continental Staff (furloughed as they would say, we would say redundant), and then cut the wages by 20% of those who remained.
Wouldn't have happened at Qantas , the staff wouldn't accept it.
Wouldn't have happened at Qantas , the staff wouldn't accept it.
Pay freeze over 3 years is close to 10% wage cut for all QF staff.
This may not be exactly the same numbers as you quote, but it is a significant proportion.
The former QF Chief Economist , states quite simply that he doesn't think QF International can be saved. He presents as a credible voice who has moved on since his QF days, and now among other things teaches MBAs at USyd/NSW
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion, but sometimes a bit awkward. I do compare a captain on an airliner with a Minor Executive Officer on ground. Now, let's do the math: they fly 1.100 hours a year, say 750 flights. There are maybe 200 people on board, paying 500 dollar a flight. This makes a revenue per flight captain and year of around 75 Mio USD, where she/he is responsible for. There are about 10 people for which the captain is responsible as well. So, take the salary of a non-C Executive being responsible for 75 Mio and 10 people -> at least the captain in air is definitely not overpaid by means of ground salaries. My5cents.
What have Pilots/Staff done that has demonstrably damaged the finances and health of Qantas?
Why are we arguing about staff costs when staff have done nothing to damage the Company when the complete idiots at the top think spending $4m a month in parking fees is a smart option?
Why is it so few see the extraordinary wealth theft from the piggy bank that 95 years of loyal staff gave this collection of financial frauds, thieves and charlatans?
It is a f&@$)
ing joke that the argument has been skewed so much. I would expect people on this forum to at least be able to think for themselves rather than swallow the line, hook and sinker from such a completely incompetent group of tools.
They have created Enron from a National Icon that had favourable monopoly status in the hearts and minds of all Australians. It is a disgrace.
Why are we arguing about staff costs when staff have done nothing to damage the Company when the complete idiots at the top think spending $4m a month in parking fees is a smart option?
Why is it so few see the extraordinary wealth theft from the piggy bank that 95 years of loyal staff gave this collection of financial frauds, thieves and charlatans?
It is a f&@$)
ing joke that the argument has been skewed so much. I would expect people on this forum to at least be able to think for themselves rather than swallow the line, hook and sinker from such a completely incompetent group of tools. They have created Enron from a National Icon that had favourable monopoly status in the hearts and minds of all Australians. It is a disgrace.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Popgun.
I see you are from/in Australia. Your point may very well be valid in an Australian aviation context. Of that I do not know a thing. Never been there, although I have understood from others that Australia is a great place overall.
What I wanted to state was that Qantas has a very good reputation in Europe - and here I can speak for Sweden in particular - for being safe and polite. These are "soft" values that I believe Qantas should be proud of and that goes back to how all Qantas pilots and staff have expressed themselves over the years.
So, fighting and turning amongst EACH OTHER when the blame lies elsewhere from the beginning is bad for business. I would like to emphazise that this reputation Qantas has at least in most European countries may very well be a result from paying properly to ensure keeping the best pilots within the company.
My belief is that a pilot who knows his/her income and knows he/she has a steady job will feel more secure. Job security means less stress to bring to the cockpit which leads to better decisions in the pointy end. Just take a look at those poor commuter codeshares in the US, they lost a planeload of people to stress and fatigue just a few years ago.
Yes, there are competition from low cost carriers. But, as I said, the first infatuation rush seem to have slowed down. Ryanair may never have crashed a plane but the sheer number of incidents are alarming. One night during stormy weather they had three fuel emergencies at the same airport. On at least two occasions flight crew have literally fallen off the plane - out of the door, down on the tarmac. I kid you not. One of these occasions was in Sweden - the FA was so stressed out she didn't notice the flight stairs were missing.
Now, people remember these things. And they remember that Qantas never made a fool of themselves - at least not in Europe. The trend is slowly turning around again. Sure, low costs are here to stay, for teenagers, students and people in crocs and sweatpants. But any reasonably intelligent person would not use low costs that I know of. As one person said to me "if it costs less it means they maintain less", comparing it to a well maintained car. It is a reasonable comparison, I think.
So bickering over who's earning the most and blaming senior pilots who helped build this great reputation is NOT the way to solve any airline crisis. Seeing low costs as a standard for future airline business is not necessarily the way to go either.
I would suggest you whiny people with or without "balls" take a step back and see the whole picture - what is the brand Qantas representing. Maybe not for you who are involved but for the general flying public. Fwiw I think Qantas reputation is a gold standard and I would hate to see it dwindle into some low cost wannabee just because pilots turn on eachother instead of coming together to fix the problem.
If the problem is bad management then just fix that. It is not that hard. Forcing out bad management has been done before. Just as long as you don't turn on each other. Caesar said something like "divide and conquer" and in this thread I see exactly how that is achieved. You dig out some questionable comparisons between Australian and US salaries and use that against each other when you could unite and do something to get rid of the management that is annoying in the first place.
The real questions are: who would you like to be in charge in the future? What would you like the future to look like? How will you achieve that?
I see you are from/in Australia. Your point may very well be valid in an Australian aviation context. Of that I do not know a thing. Never been there, although I have understood from others that Australia is a great place overall.
What I wanted to state was that Qantas has a very good reputation in Europe - and here I can speak for Sweden in particular - for being safe and polite. These are "soft" values that I believe Qantas should be proud of and that goes back to how all Qantas pilots and staff have expressed themselves over the years.
So, fighting and turning amongst EACH OTHER when the blame lies elsewhere from the beginning is bad for business. I would like to emphazise that this reputation Qantas has at least in most European countries may very well be a result from paying properly to ensure keeping the best pilots within the company.
My belief is that a pilot who knows his/her income and knows he/she has a steady job will feel more secure. Job security means less stress to bring to the cockpit which leads to better decisions in the pointy end. Just take a look at those poor commuter codeshares in the US, they lost a planeload of people to stress and fatigue just a few years ago.
Yes, there are competition from low cost carriers. But, as I said, the first infatuation rush seem to have slowed down. Ryanair may never have crashed a plane but the sheer number of incidents are alarming. One night during stormy weather they had three fuel emergencies at the same airport. On at least two occasions flight crew have literally fallen off the plane - out of the door, down on the tarmac. I kid you not. One of these occasions was in Sweden - the FA was so stressed out she didn't notice the flight stairs were missing.
Now, people remember these things. And they remember that Qantas never made a fool of themselves - at least not in Europe. The trend is slowly turning around again. Sure, low costs are here to stay, for teenagers, students and people in crocs and sweatpants. But any reasonably intelligent person would not use low costs that I know of. As one person said to me "if it costs less it means they maintain less", comparing it to a well maintained car. It is a reasonable comparison, I think.
So bickering over who's earning the most and blaming senior pilots who helped build this great reputation is NOT the way to solve any airline crisis. Seeing low costs as a standard for future airline business is not necessarily the way to go either.
I would suggest you whiny people with or without "balls" take a step back and see the whole picture - what is the brand Qantas representing. Maybe not for you who are involved but for the general flying public. Fwiw I think Qantas reputation is a gold standard and I would hate to see it dwindle into some low cost wannabee just because pilots turn on eachother instead of coming together to fix the problem.
If the problem is bad management then just fix that. It is not that hard. Forcing out bad management has been done before. Just as long as you don't turn on each other. Caesar said something like "divide and conquer" and in this thread I see exactly how that is achieved. You dig out some questionable comparisons between Australian and US salaries and use that against each other when you could unite and do something to get rid of the management that is annoying in the first place.
The real questions are: who would you like to be in charge in the future? What would you like the future to look like? How will you achieve that?
If the problem is bad management then just fix that. It is not that hard.
That's because they also tied up the lease on the seventh floor of the book depository building accross the road. And there are too many Zapruders running around with their pesky iphones cameras and such.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“QF staff wages and conditions have ZERO to do with any perceived ..er .. problems......”
No, they have a lot to do with the REAL problems.
“Virgin Engineers get 5% more than QF Engineers as a single example.”
As before, Virgin is NOT the airline you should be concerned about.
“The wages are NOT the problem”
There is not a business manager alive today in Australia today that would agree with this statement. Especially one from an industry saddled with bloated legacy labor costs and industrial fat.
“The QF pilot is flying more and earning less than the equivalent Cathay pilot for the last year.”
Awesome, fantastic. That’s a great example. But its just ONE example and CX is trying its best to curb labor costs also. Should we make the comparison between labor costs at Qantas and Thai/Malaysia/Singapore/Silkair/Philipines/Lan Chile/Vietnam/Air China/China Southern/China Eastern/Sichuan/Hainan/Garuda/Air Asia/Fiji/Air New Guinea/Air New Zealand/South African?
Qantas labor costs are higher than ALL of these airlines and in many cases significantly higher.
Wages represent about 20% of operating revenue of an airline such as Qantas. Crew wages (pilots about 6 and FA about 4) represent about 10% of operating revenue.
You would need to be insane to think that the business would not be focused on these costs that unlike fuel and exchange rates, can be controlled!
No, they have a lot to do with the REAL problems.
“Virgin Engineers get 5% more than QF Engineers as a single example.”
As before, Virgin is NOT the airline you should be concerned about.
“The wages are NOT the problem”
There is not a business manager alive today in Australia today that would agree with this statement. Especially one from an industry saddled with bloated legacy labor costs and industrial fat.
“The QF pilot is flying more and earning less than the equivalent Cathay pilot for the last year.”
Awesome, fantastic. That’s a great example. But its just ONE example and CX is trying its best to curb labor costs also. Should we make the comparison between labor costs at Qantas and Thai/Malaysia/Singapore/Silkair/Philipines/Lan Chile/Vietnam/Air China/China Southern/China Eastern/Sichuan/Hainan/Garuda/Air Asia/Fiji/Air New Guinea/Air New Zealand/South African?
Qantas labor costs are higher than ALL of these airlines and in many cases significantly higher.
Wages represent about 20% of operating revenue of an airline such as Qantas. Crew wages (pilots about 6 and FA about 4) represent about 10% of operating revenue.
You would need to be insane to think that the business would not be focused on these costs that unlike fuel and exchange rates, can be controlled!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awesome, fantastic. That’s a great example. But its just ONE example....
"Cathay Pacific Chairman Christopher Pratt said: “The operating environment remained challenging throughout 2013, for the Group and the aviation industry as a whole. It was encouraging to see an improvement in our overall performance, and the strength of the passenger business reflects our continuing investment in network development and providing superior service and world-beating products." " From the March 2014 announcement of their HK$2620million profit.
So, if most of the costs are fixed, as you say, and CX wages are the same or higher than QF pilots, the difference must be management strategy.....taken from the same report-
"Passenger revenue in 2013 increased by 2.4%..."
"capacity began to increase towards the end of the year as frequencies were restored and new routes were introduced."
"withdrawing older, less fuel-efficient aircraft from service and taking delivery of new, more fuel-efficient aircraft."
"In 2013 Cathay Pacific continued to upgrade its fleet.."
"in December 2013, the airline announced an order for 21 new Boeing 777-9X aircraft (for delivery after 2020), three new Boeing 777-300ER aircraft and one new Boeing 747-8F freighter, and to sell six existing Boeing 747-400F freighters..."
So, CX were upgrading their fleet, buying MORE B777s, increasing networks and routes (expanding), replacing old aircraft with new etc.
Qantas management were.....? Pretty f*****g obvious, even to those of us watching who are not professors. Even Alan's buddies at EK, made over a billion dollars while paying those exorbitant and bloated pilot salaries.
Please, continue to gloss over these facts as you spin, deflect and apologise.
The world economy is picking up and anecdotal evidence suggests 'most' airlines are doing better. No i dont have all the figures but I have that impression.
Qantas is not. Despite 'similar' working conditions and costs.
Qantas is cancelling aircraft orders, buying aircraft and parking them, betting the farm on ventureS across the globe that after 10+ years have failed to nett dollar one, had one failed venture nationalised by a foreign govt, had executives put in gaol for dodgy financial dealings, built expensive lounges (for millions - we arent talking a few chairs and a pie vending machine!) and then after 90 years stopping using the hub, handing on a gaudy platter our entire premium customer portfolio to an airline based at an airport that is grossly overcrowded undergoing repairs making the holding worse, cancelling 50 year destinations againg handing them to our biggest competitor, failing to replace in any meaningful sense the backbone of Longhaul operations after sending good aircraft to be destroyed, alienated the entire Eastern suburbs (wealthiest part of Australia) by forcing passengers onto a natioanal carrier with an avowed centuries old hatred of them (Arabs dont like Jews) gambled the airlines exceptional name in the press with an off the cuff and totally uneducated guess about a major airline incident (Qf32), made massive changes to the most respected centres of aircraft engineering in the world, tried to bully foreign govts into allowing them unfettered access to their own markets, ordered billions of dollars of aircraft for an airline that has a tiny chance (I would say none) of even getting a base, systematically removing the brands USP (unique selling point - Australia) from all its services and front line presentation, had customers willing to spend big money flying with them, but deliberately and systematically forced them onto a discount product by removing premium options for premium customers, consistently destroyed its relationships with political allies, demanded governmental support, attacked its only domestic competitor in corridors of power and publicly for its internal structuring and international relationships and then demands to copy them, says to staff that about 15% will be sacked if they dont get a taxpayer bailout of billions (when competitors are increasing profits) but makes the announcement before having any idea of who is leaving or where they are going from, has a Board and Senior management with NO actual experience in what the company they are paid to control actually does and openly admits to 'having learnt a lot as we only really knew about airlines through 1st Class Lounges' and overseen an 80ish % fall in the share price but pays an extraordinarily huge salary package to its 'managers' - totally ridiculous in comparison to their peers and these minor failures are just off the top of my head without any great thought.
Oh, and they shut down the company at a cost of $200m because staff violently protested against company management direction by wearing red ties and making PA's asking to keep an Australian Icon Australian.
I can totally understand why the problems are seen as staff being greedy by earning what they do in similar businesses, even though a 50% pay cut would make not a jot of difference to anything that deeply concern them...
Qantas is not. Despite 'similar' working conditions and costs.
Qantas is cancelling aircraft orders, buying aircraft and parking them, betting the farm on ventureS across the globe that after 10+ years have failed to nett dollar one, had one failed venture nationalised by a foreign govt, had executives put in gaol for dodgy financial dealings, built expensive lounges (for millions - we arent talking a few chairs and a pie vending machine!) and then after 90 years stopping using the hub, handing on a gaudy platter our entire premium customer portfolio to an airline based at an airport that is grossly overcrowded undergoing repairs making the holding worse, cancelling 50 year destinations againg handing them to our biggest competitor, failing to replace in any meaningful sense the backbone of Longhaul operations after sending good aircraft to be destroyed, alienated the entire Eastern suburbs (wealthiest part of Australia) by forcing passengers onto a natioanal carrier with an avowed centuries old hatred of them (Arabs dont like Jews) gambled the airlines exceptional name in the press with an off the cuff and totally uneducated guess about a major airline incident (Qf32), made massive changes to the most respected centres of aircraft engineering in the world, tried to bully foreign govts into allowing them unfettered access to their own markets, ordered billions of dollars of aircraft for an airline that has a tiny chance (I would say none) of even getting a base, systematically removing the brands USP (unique selling point - Australia) from all its services and front line presentation, had customers willing to spend big money flying with them, but deliberately and systematically forced them onto a discount product by removing premium options for premium customers, consistently destroyed its relationships with political allies, demanded governmental support, attacked its only domestic competitor in corridors of power and publicly for its internal structuring and international relationships and then demands to copy them, says to staff that about 15% will be sacked if they dont get a taxpayer bailout of billions (when competitors are increasing profits) but makes the announcement before having any idea of who is leaving or where they are going from, has a Board and Senior management with NO actual experience in what the company they are paid to control actually does and openly admits to 'having learnt a lot as we only really knew about airlines through 1st Class Lounges' and overseen an 80ish % fall in the share price but pays an extraordinarily huge salary package to its 'managers' - totally ridiculous in comparison to their peers and these minor failures are just off the top of my head without any great thought.
Oh, and they shut down the company at a cost of $200m because staff violently protested against company management direction by wearing red ties and making PA's asking to keep an Australian Icon Australian.
I can totally understand why the problems are seen as staff being greedy by earning what they do in similar businesses, even though a 50% pay cut would make not a jot of difference to anything that deeply concern them...
And announcing an 'ultra premiun' carrier in Asia but launching a discount one - and while on the topic of bloated salaries that people seem obsessed with - why not talk about Neil Perry, a CHEF who announced his package as being circa $1.3m per year....
This is a Company that has totally and completely lost the plot and is blaming everything it possibly can (with its still massive media pull) for its total failure to make even the most basic decisions.
This is a Company that has totally and completely lost the plot and is blaming everything it possibly can (with its still massive media pull) for its total failure to make even the most basic decisions.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''I wonder,'' Prince Metternich is supposed to have said when an aide whispered into his ear at a royal ball that the czar of all the Russians was dead, ''I wonder what his motive could have been.''
You appear to be happy to talk about everything else, except the central issue, the failure to negotiate with its workforce. What could be their motive?
Refute the statement made by Capt Barry Jackson, in writing in a national newspaper. I am not aware of any Qantas media release or statement that has denied or challenged his statement.
As I wrote back in post #146
Qantas not unions' fault
In a meeting in February 2011, I offered Alan Joyce a two-year pay freeze and a commitment to rewrite our certified agreement.
This was rejected out of hand. It is an ideological war and Mr Joyce needed the pilots to be able to lock the staff out in 2011 at a cost of over $200 million. There is nothing wrong with industrial relations in Australia but there is a lot wrong with management.
..........................
Barry Jackson
Sydney, NSW
Australian Financial Review, page 35, Friday 7 March 2014
(my bold)
In a meeting in February 2011, I offered Alan Joyce a two-year pay freeze and a commitment to rewrite our certified agreement.
This was rejected out of hand. It is an ideological war and Mr Joyce needed the pilots to be able to lock the staff out in 2011 at a cost of over $200 million. There is nothing wrong with industrial relations in Australia but there is a lot wrong with management.
..........................
Barry Jackson
Sydney, NSW
Australian Financial Review, page 35, Friday 7 March 2014
(my bold)
And another thing Prof...
If you apparently know all this, why have Executive Management (EM) been so coy with the facts? Wouldn't it be easy to unambiguously make their water-tight case if they simply produced all the evidence?
The truth is that EM's propensity for;
- evasive answers to everyone's questions from employees to Senate Inquiries,
- half truths and misleading inferences,
- inconsistent answers (new jets; good for JQ, bad for QF), and
- denial of obvious and exorbitant wastage (JQ jets in storage),
has created the climate where virtually nothing EM tries to assert is believed.
People are not that stupid. I believe employees could be trusted to understand the facts if given the chance to see the research and ask a few questions. EM's condescending "trust us" attitude is the height of arrogance when they fail to simply prove what they are saying and/or admit their own mistakes too. EM have claimed amaaaazing foresight for opportunities in the last ten years, but cannot enunciate a single "if this (eg new pay rate for pilots) could be achieved, then that (eg 50 x 787s) will be our plan" for Qantas mainline!!
Platitudes won't cut it. Neither will blanket 'no cost increases under any circumstances' policies. EM now has even the JQ people pissed off! Employees are effectively being told that, no matter what efficiencies might be offered, there are absolutely NO promises w.r.t. fleet, routes, expansion, the 'turn-around' etc.
The question being asked out there is; What is gained if employees 'sell their soul' in concessions only to give the company a cheaper compulsory redundancy payout so that the CEO and friends can gloat about their masterful HR outcomes?
I say "So much for leadership".
The truth is that EM's propensity for;
- evasive answers to everyone's questions from employees to Senate Inquiries,
- half truths and misleading inferences,
- inconsistent answers (new jets; good for JQ, bad for QF), and
- denial of obvious and exorbitant wastage (JQ jets in storage),
has created the climate where virtually nothing EM tries to assert is believed.
People are not that stupid. I believe employees could be trusted to understand the facts if given the chance to see the research and ask a few questions. EM's condescending "trust us" attitude is the height of arrogance when they fail to simply prove what they are saying and/or admit their own mistakes too. EM have claimed amaaaazing foresight for opportunities in the last ten years, but cannot enunciate a single "if this (eg new pay rate for pilots) could be achieved, then that (eg 50 x 787s) will be our plan" for Qantas mainline!!
Platitudes won't cut it. Neither will blanket 'no cost increases under any circumstances' policies. EM now has even the JQ people pissed off! Employees are effectively being told that, no matter what efficiencies might be offered, there are absolutely NO promises w.r.t. fleet, routes, expansion, the 'turn-around' etc.
The question being asked out there is; What is gained if employees 'sell their soul' in concessions only to give the company a cheaper compulsory redundancy payout so that the CEO and friends can gloat about their masterful HR outcomes?
I say "So much for leadership".
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadership?
FFS.
The day AJ gives back, say, $1million because the company made a loss proportionate to his net worth.....I'm sure he will have the staff onboard.
If AJ owned the company- so when it loses ....$300 million, he loses $300million, I am certain behaviours would be different.
However, when the CEO, who has neither built the company, nor has any real stake in the company, collects his multi-millions regardless of what happens, then how does anyone expect ownership of the decisions?
If his nuts were on the block, I am certain things would be different. What do you think, professor- should executives be remunerated with millions of dollars when presiding over such large losses and underperformance/negative turn-arounds? Or should there be a similar fate as faced by the owners? i.e you make a large profit, we will pay you millions. Make a large loss, and we will remove limbs/appendages.
Or is there another agenda, which would make paying millions for such poor paper performance palatable?
Otherwise, let's pay an MBA from say, India/Philippines/China/Vietnam to be CEO at $250k, since such benchmarking seems to be a good idea.
FFS.
The day AJ gives back, say, $1million because the company made a loss proportionate to his net worth.....I'm sure he will have the staff onboard.
If AJ owned the company- so when it loses ....$300 million, he loses $300million, I am certain behaviours would be different.
However, when the CEO, who has neither built the company, nor has any real stake in the company, collects his multi-millions regardless of what happens, then how does anyone expect ownership of the decisions?
If his nuts were on the block, I am certain things would be different. What do you think, professor- should executives be remunerated with millions of dollars when presiding over such large losses and underperformance/negative turn-arounds? Or should there be a similar fate as faced by the owners? i.e you make a large profit, we will pay you millions. Make a large loss, and we will remove limbs/appendages.
Or is there another agenda, which would make paying millions for such poor paper performance palatable?
Otherwise, let's pay an MBA from say, India/Philippines/China/Vietnam to be CEO at $250k, since such benchmarking seems to be a good idea.
However, when the CEO, who has neither built the company, nor has any real stake in the company, collects his multi-millions regardless of what happens, then how does anyone expect ownership of the decisions?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prof, be careful with your "low-cost CEO"- he might point out the 'opportunity cost' of parking all those planes (let alone the 'opportunity cost' of using the 787s at J* instead of mainline....ooops).
Hey Professor...
Have you seen the qantas pyramid?http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/...GEA_Report.pdf
Board 9
Level 1 CEO 1
Level 2 Executive Committee 7
Level 3 Executive Manager 62
Level 4 Head of Department/Senior Manager 433
Level 5 Manager( manger of people or a function) 2054
Level 6 Coordinator/Supervisor (non management position) 8557
Level 7 Team member 23298
Any issues with the stack?
And where do you reckon pilots fit in?
The document also lists the entities within the group.
I know, lets segment further!!!!
Have you seen the qantas pyramid?http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/...GEA_Report.pdf
Board 9
Level 1 CEO 1
Level 2 Executive Committee 7
Level 3 Executive Manager 62
Level 4 Head of Department/Senior Manager 433
Level 5 Manager( manger of people or a function) 2054
Level 6 Coordinator/Supervisor (non management position) 8557
Level 7 Team member 23298
Any issues with the stack?
And where do you reckon pilots fit in?
The document also lists the entities within the group.
I know, lets segment further!!!!