Joyce ‘retires’ early 👍
The following users liked this post:
[QUOTE=Pearly White;11497903]This cartoon represents his legacy accurately. The online media is flogging him for it today.
1) The cartoon lays the blame entirely at Joyce's feet. Joyce is not the only culprit by a long shot.
2) I like the flogging concept though. I'm sure both current and ex employees would be happy to chip in for a set of stocks that could be installed outside QCC, maybe a rotation of volunteers to collect vegetable matter from Coles etc (not as convenient now Flight Catering doesn't exist) to provide good old fashioned entertainment for the masses - the technique worked from Roman times almost throughout the Middle Ages. Might also do a power of good for the next engagement survey!
1) The cartoon lays the blame entirely at Joyce's feet. Joyce is not the only culprit by a long shot.
2) I like the flogging concept though. I'm sure both current and ex employees would be happy to chip in for a set of stocks that could be installed outside QCC, maybe a rotation of volunteers to collect vegetable matter from Coles etc (not as convenient now Flight Catering doesn't exist) to provide good old fashioned entertainment for the masses - the technique worked from Roman times almost throughout the Middle Ages. Might also do a power of good for the next engagement survey!
Wow Dragon. Can’t believe that type of article is being published!
I was incensed when Joyce got away with the lockout and IMPROVED their reputations by doing so! He wasn’t acting alone, everyone needs to know Vanessa was right there, as was the kneeling sycophant Olivia (see Senate inquiry footage) among many others in the current management ‘team’, He did NOT destroy the culture of an untouchable icon without total support and suggestive encouragement from the whole ‘team’ - Goyder down.
Their behaviour wasn’t good before the lockout, after being emboldened by the adulation of their adoring fans for effectively holding CHOGM to ransom they got away with absolute murder afterwards.
Vanessa deserves no holiday from the press, Without wanting to immediately use the Nazi’s as an example, it’s famous enough for everyone to follow the analogy. Letting the Board and senior managers of Qantas off the hook for the last 20+ years of asset and culture stripping would be like saying there was no need for Nuremburg Trials and the Nazi’s should have been left in charge of Germany by the Allies because Hitler had committed suicide and WWII along with the Holocaust was entirely that one persons fault.
I was incensed when Joyce got away with the lockout and IMPROVED their reputations by doing so! He wasn’t acting alone, everyone needs to know Vanessa was right there, as was the kneeling sycophant Olivia (see Senate inquiry footage) among many others in the current management ‘team’, He did NOT destroy the culture of an untouchable icon without total support and suggestive encouragement from the whole ‘team’ - Goyder down.
Their behaviour wasn’t good before the lockout, after being emboldened by the adulation of their adoring fans for effectively holding CHOGM to ransom they got away with absolute murder afterwards.
Vanessa deserves no holiday from the press, Without wanting to immediately use the Nazi’s as an example, it’s famous enough for everyone to follow the analogy. Letting the Board and senior managers of Qantas off the hook for the last 20+ years of asset and culture stripping would be like saying there was no need for Nuremburg Trials and the Nazi’s should have been left in charge of Germany by the Allies because Hitler had committed suicide and WWII along with the Holocaust was entirely that one persons fault.
How any of them can sleep at night is beyond me, unfortunately his highest level supporters will survive as the fungus at the top remains pretty well intact.
The following 2 users liked this post by blubak:
But these kinds of "managers" don't give a rats - and we've seen that time and time and time again, yet "they" keep getting away with it. Short of adopting Communism, I'm not smart enough to work out what the answer is.
The following 2 users liked this post by KRviator:
I heard a rumour Alan was in BNE the other night to prove anyone could drive a tug when an engine was hit and written off on VH-EBN ( according the the Townsville refueller 
)
)short flights long nights
Which would be $9.18 today, if you were to apply inflation per the RBA's calculator...I don't think I'd be overly happy to have experienced a 30% reduction in share price between joining and leaving a business I was CEO of, when all you've done is gut the place...
But these kinds of "managers" don't give a rats - and we've seen that time and time and time again, yet "they" keep getting away with it. Short of adopting Communism, I'm not smart enough to work out what the answer is.
But these kinds of "managers" don't give a rats - and we've seen that time and time and time again, yet "they" keep getting away with it. Short of adopting Communism, I'm not smart enough to work out what the answer is.
Wait a minute… the Guru, GT, said the other day that Alan took the share price from $1.00 under his watch. Surely, GT could not be wrong?
Mention of GT exposes once again why so much of what is reported is dross. Journalists like Joe Aston are rare exceptions. It would be great to let him loose on Airservices and TIBA/TRA, but I suspect he’s a bit busy.
Which would be $9.18 today, if you were to apply inflation per the RBA's calculator...I don't think I'd be overly happy to have experienced a 30% reduction in share price between joining and leaving a business I was CEO of, when all you've done is gut the place...
But these kinds of "managers" don't give a rats - and we've seen that time and time and time again, yet "they" keep getting away with it. Short of adopting Communism, I'm not smart enough to work out what the answer is.
But these kinds of "managers" don't give a rats - and we've seen that time and time and time again, yet "they" keep getting away with it. Short of adopting Communism, I'm not smart enough to work out what the answer is.
On 28 November 2008 when Joyce took the reins at Qantas the share price opened at $2.51.
Escalating that by CPI gets you to around $3.67. Escalating by the increase in the All Ords over the same period gets you to around $5.14.
Did Alan Joyce know? Is this Qantas ‘insider’ trading?
The Qantas board of directors should resign and regulators ought to investigate charging Alan Joyce with insider trading. Michael West reports.
Can Alan Joyce be prosecuted for insider trading? If he knew about the ACCC investigating Qantas’ ‘phantom flights’, which is false and misleading conduct, then the answer is yes.
The ACCC began investigating Qantas last year. By the time Joyce sold $17m worth of his personal Qantas stock in early June, the investigation was in full swing. It was only made public on Thursday, Qantas shares dropped almost 7% on the news to close Friday at $5.82.
An ASX director’s disclosure shows Alan Joyce sold 2,500,000 shares at $6.75 on market on June 1. The ASX had not been notified of the ACCC sting, and Qantas shares have fallen almost 14% since the Joyce sale. Meanwhile, Australian superannuation funds, the stewards of retirement savings for millions of Australians, were not put in the picture as to the ACCC action and are 14% worse off than Alan Joyce as at Friday’s market prices.They did not have the benefit of this material information, that is an impending enforcement action by the competition and consumer regulator, ACCC, against Qantas. This was not disclosed by the board of Qantas, or by Joyce.
The question is, did Joyce himself know? It is possible that he did not, but very unlikely. If he did know, two questions arise: why did he and the board not insist that the information be disclosed to the market under ASX ‘continuous disclosure’ laws, and two, did he inform the board that he was selling?
If Joyce did not know – it is possible but also highly unlikely that the ACCC was dealing with Qantas lawyers who did not tell their superiors – then this would not equate to insider trading. According to the AFR, the ACCC began its investigation last year.
If he did know, an insider trading prosecution is plausible, indeed warranted, or else the perception that politicians and regulators are ‘under Qantas’ thumb’ can only deepen; indeed, that there is one rule for the rich and powerful and entirely another for the rest of us.
Section 1043A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that if a person or company (the “Insider”) possesses inside information, and the Insider knew or ought reasonably to have known that the information was insider information, the Insider must not apply for, acquire, or dispose of, relevant financial products.
Is the ACCC ‘material information’ which needs to be disclosed under the Corporations Act? The maximum penalty for what is alleged by the ACCC is a fine of 10% of annual revenue. If that is not material, what is?
Further, whether deliberate or not, they appear to have profited from dudding their customers on an industrial scale. The ACCC only hints at this in their published materials:
“We allege that Qantas made many of these cancellations for reasons that were within its control, such as network optimisation including in response to shifts in consumer demand, route withdrawals or retention of take-off and landing slots at certain airports,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
The key words here are ‘network optimisation’. While is it understandable that in the chaos of the airline’s recovery from Covid, the carrier was short of both aircraft and crew, and scrambling like many other airlines around the world to get back to reliable service, ‘network optimisation’ suggests one reason for the cancelled flights was to stuff more customers into fewer flights to optimise ‘yield’, that is, put more bums on seats, and spend less on jet fuel and staffing costs.
The ACCC will presumably establish whether the cancellations were a deliberate corporate tactic to profiteer at the expense of customers.
There is a monumental ethical failure here too, apart from questions of insider trading. That is, Qantas had commenced a share buy-back in February. That is, flush with public funds from the $2.7b in Covid subsidies (including $900m in JobKeeper) it began buying its own shares.
This is an entirely legal, although often very suss, way in which corporations can ramp their own stock to make executive share incentives worth more. The ethical dimension is whether it is appropriate for a chief executive, especially one who possibly has knowledge of a looming explosive regulatory action, to sell his personal shares to unwitting buyers, shares which have been gifted by the taxpayer-subsidised company in performance stock?
The answer to that would be ‘no’. It is a very bad look. Presumably Joyce told the board in advance of the sale (we don’t know this either), which is now equally culpable for this tacky decision, yet the Qantas directors were docile and let it pass. The whole point of performance stock is to retain an executive’s diligence.
The reason Alan Joyce and Qantas are such a big deal, and so worthy of public discussion, is that they represent the worst of corporate excesses, and the inexorable rise of corporate control over governments.
Not only is Qantas ‘too big to fail’, a monopolist protected by successive governments, a monopolist run aggressively for the private profit of its executives, a monopolist which exploits its influence over public officials, this corporation profited more than any other from public subsidies – a massive bail-out – during Covid.
It then used this liquidity for its directors, shareholders and executives to profit personally, at the expense of customers.
It was an epic mistake for the previous government, and sadly one supported by the Opposition at the time, to give billions to Qantas in public money with no strings attached. Not a loan, no performance demands, just a gargantuan gift in JobKeeper and assorted aviation hand-outs.
Insofar as Qantas is also a symbol for rampant corporatism, the last government’s pandemic response was to allow Alan Joyce and the Qantas board a free pass to restructure its workforce, to get rid of who it wanted, to impose complex and onerous IR changes which crushed the confidence and morale of its workers. This, even to the point where the Federal Court has made two decisions (now on appeal with the High Court) ruling Qantas had illegally sacked hundreds of its workers.
Customers, as evinced by the ACCC claim, have been treated just as poorly. Yet as Qantas operates as a duopoly with Virgin, the flying public does not have enough choice for this to be considered a ‘free market’. The massive recent $2.5b profit was struck by gouging customers who are captured by lack of choice in a duopoly market.
When Alan Joyce infamously pointed the bone at his customers for Qantas service failures as the group emerged from the pandemic, saying they were not ‘match fit’ (sufficiently ready for flying, hence the queues), it can be said with conviction now that Qantas management is not ethically fit to be stewards of this airline.
In fact the ethical failures are such that, in trashing the Qantas brand, they also constitute incompetence.
The Qantas board of directors should resign and regulators ought to investigate charging Alan Joyce with insider trading. Michael West reports.
Can Alan Joyce be prosecuted for insider trading? If he knew about the ACCC investigating Qantas’ ‘phantom flights’, which is false and misleading conduct, then the answer is yes.
The ACCC began investigating Qantas last year. By the time Joyce sold $17m worth of his personal Qantas stock in early June, the investigation was in full swing. It was only made public on Thursday, Qantas shares dropped almost 7% on the news to close Friday at $5.82.
An ASX director’s disclosure shows Alan Joyce sold 2,500,000 shares at $6.75 on market on June 1. The ASX had not been notified of the ACCC sting, and Qantas shares have fallen almost 14% since the Joyce sale. Meanwhile, Australian superannuation funds, the stewards of retirement savings for millions of Australians, were not put in the picture as to the ACCC action and are 14% worse off than Alan Joyce as at Friday’s market prices.They did not have the benefit of this material information, that is an impending enforcement action by the competition and consumer regulator, ACCC, against Qantas. This was not disclosed by the board of Qantas, or by Joyce.
The question is, did Joyce himself know? It is possible that he did not, but very unlikely. If he did know, two questions arise: why did he and the board not insist that the information be disclosed to the market under ASX ‘continuous disclosure’ laws, and two, did he inform the board that he was selling?
If Joyce did not know – it is possible but also highly unlikely that the ACCC was dealing with Qantas lawyers who did not tell their superiors – then this would not equate to insider trading. According to the AFR, the ACCC began its investigation last year.
If he did know, an insider trading prosecution is plausible, indeed warranted, or else the perception that politicians and regulators are ‘under Qantas’ thumb’ can only deepen; indeed, that there is one rule for the rich and powerful and entirely another for the rest of us.
Section 1043A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that if a person or company (the “Insider”) possesses inside information, and the Insider knew or ought reasonably to have known that the information was insider information, the Insider must not apply for, acquire, or dispose of, relevant financial products.
Is the ACCC ‘material information’ which needs to be disclosed under the Corporations Act? The maximum penalty for what is alleged by the ACCC is a fine of 10% of annual revenue. If that is not material, what is?
Misleading and deceptive, and material, and profitable
Without trawling through ASIC practice notes and AustLII precedents, it is fair to say that the misleading and deceptive conduct is so substantial as to be material. Qantas sold tickets to thousands of people on no less than 8000 cancelled flights.Further, whether deliberate or not, they appear to have profited from dudding their customers on an industrial scale. The ACCC only hints at this in their published materials:
“We allege that Qantas made many of these cancellations for reasons that were within its control, such as network optimisation including in response to shifts in consumer demand, route withdrawals or retention of take-off and landing slots at certain airports,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
The key words here are ‘network optimisation’. While is it understandable that in the chaos of the airline’s recovery from Covid, the carrier was short of both aircraft and crew, and scrambling like many other airlines around the world to get back to reliable service, ‘network optimisation’ suggests one reason for the cancelled flights was to stuff more customers into fewer flights to optimise ‘yield’, that is, put more bums on seats, and spend less on jet fuel and staffing costs.
The ACCC will presumably establish whether the cancellations were a deliberate corporate tactic to profiteer at the expense of customers.
Buying your own shares, que?
But will ASIC the corporate watchdog pursue Qantas correspondence to establish that Alan Joyce knew about the ACCC investigation and failed to disclose it while profiting as an ‘insider’ at selling his personal shares at high prices.There is a monumental ethical failure here too, apart from questions of insider trading. That is, Qantas had commenced a share buy-back in February. That is, flush with public funds from the $2.7b in Covid subsidies (including $900m in JobKeeper) it began buying its own shares.
This is an entirely legal, although often very suss, way in which corporations can ramp their own stock to make executive share incentives worth more. The ethical dimension is whether it is appropriate for a chief executive, especially one who possibly has knowledge of a looming explosive regulatory action, to sell his personal shares to unwitting buyers, shares which have been gifted by the taxpayer-subsidised company in performance stock?
The answer to that would be ‘no’. It is a very bad look. Presumably Joyce told the board in advance of the sale (we don’t know this either), which is now equally culpable for this tacky decision, yet the Qantas directors were docile and let it pass. The whole point of performance stock is to retain an executive’s diligence.
The reason Alan Joyce and Qantas are such a big deal, and so worthy of public discussion, is that they represent the worst of corporate excesses, and the inexorable rise of corporate control over governments.
The fall of an icon, the fall in public trust
This was a national icon, a cherished brand, build with the sweat of our ancestors. It is also a symbol for the deterioration of public trust in institutions – and corporate welfare. This at a time when ordinary Australians are doing it tough in a cost of living crisis. It is now a symbol of greed.Not only is Qantas ‘too big to fail’, a monopolist protected by successive governments, a monopolist run aggressively for the private profit of its executives, a monopolist which exploits its influence over public officials, this corporation profited more than any other from public subsidies – a massive bail-out – during Covid.
It then used this liquidity for its directors, shareholders and executives to profit personally, at the expense of customers.
It was an epic mistake for the previous government, and sadly one supported by the Opposition at the time, to give billions to Qantas in public money with no strings attached. Not a loan, no performance demands, just a gargantuan gift in JobKeeper and assorted aviation hand-outs.
Insofar as Qantas is also a symbol for rampant corporatism, the last government’s pandemic response was to allow Alan Joyce and the Qantas board a free pass to restructure its workforce, to get rid of who it wanted, to impose complex and onerous IR changes which crushed the confidence and morale of its workers. This, even to the point where the Federal Court has made two decisions (now on appeal with the High Court) ruling Qantas had illegally sacked hundreds of its workers.
Customers, as evinced by the ACCC claim, have been treated just as poorly. Yet as Qantas operates as a duopoly with Virgin, the flying public does not have enough choice for this to be considered a ‘free market’. The massive recent $2.5b profit was struck by gouging customers who are captured by lack of choice in a duopoly market.
When Alan Joyce infamously pointed the bone at his customers for Qantas service failures as the group emerged from the pandemic, saying they were not ‘match fit’ (sufficiently ready for flying, hence the queues), it can be said with conviction now that Qantas management is not ethically fit to be stewards of this airline.
In fact the ethical failures are such that, in trashing the Qantas brand, they also constitute incompetence.
The following 9 users liked this post by artee:
Rene Rivkin was jailed for insider trading…. He bought 50,000 Qantas shares before the sale of Impulse, which earned him a $2500 profit. He was also banned for life from stock broking.
The following 2 users liked this post by Capt Fathom:
The market’s reacted somewhat positively to the news.
Share price up 2% today:
Why Qantas shares are pushing higher today
Share price up 2% today:
Why Qantas shares are pushing higher today
Michael West's analysis is on the money. I hope that his hypothesis leads to a thorough investigation.
There is a bigger picture here. Over the past 15 years it is stated that Joyce has taken $125m in remuneration out of Qantas. This is more than the combined remuneration of most of the airline CEO's is Asia. I have done a quick tally and worked out it is more than the CEO's of SQ, MH, TG, CX, CI, KA, JL and NH. By the metrics afforded Joyce, he was running an airline that was better than the combined total of all those airlines I have just listed. In that time he has turned what was TAA into a sub-par domestic carrier with a small international footprint. QF carries less than 15% of the traffic into and out of the country.
In reality, he has left behind a fleet of aged aircraft attached to a FF program, a lot of smoke and more than a few mirrors.
How did this happen? Stupidity of the board and the Australian political class.
Is Qantas the national carrier? No, it is not. It is likely owned more than 50% by foreign interests given the large nominee shareholding.
Why is the Australian public and it's government left to lament the fact that Joyce's business strategy has always been to socialise any losses and privatise all the gains? Because we are all stupid is the only logical conclusion. If that is not true then why did the Australian Government not take a 25%-30% equity stake in the business in exchange for the $2.7bn of taxpayer funds pumped into QF during COVID. Many governments took equity for the bailouts. If the Australian Government had done similar then we could probably still call QF the national carrier.
I wish Ms Hudson no ill but she sure has gleefully taken carriage of a ticking bomb.
There is a bigger picture here. Over the past 15 years it is stated that Joyce has taken $125m in remuneration out of Qantas. This is more than the combined remuneration of most of the airline CEO's is Asia. I have done a quick tally and worked out it is more than the CEO's of SQ, MH, TG, CX, CI, KA, JL and NH. By the metrics afforded Joyce, he was running an airline that was better than the combined total of all those airlines I have just listed. In that time he has turned what was TAA into a sub-par domestic carrier with a small international footprint. QF carries less than 15% of the traffic into and out of the country.
In reality, he has left behind a fleet of aged aircraft attached to a FF program, a lot of smoke and more than a few mirrors.
How did this happen? Stupidity of the board and the Australian political class.
Is Qantas the national carrier? No, it is not. It is likely owned more than 50% by foreign interests given the large nominee shareholding.
Why is the Australian public and it's government left to lament the fact that Joyce's business strategy has always been to socialise any losses and privatise all the gains? Because we are all stupid is the only logical conclusion. If that is not true then why did the Australian Government not take a 25%-30% equity stake in the business in exchange for the $2.7bn of taxpayer funds pumped into QF during COVID. Many governments took equity for the bailouts. If the Australian Government had done similar then we could probably still call QF the national carrier.
I wish Ms Hudson no ill but she sure has gleefully taken carriage of a ticking bomb.
The following 4 users liked this post by VR-HFX:
As an executive manager it’s hard to think that she was not at least knowledgeable (let alone complicit) in the illegal sacking off staff, ripping off customers by charging for flights that were already cancelled, making it extremely difficult for customers to access refunds for flights they weren’t able to fly, deciding to buy back $100s of millions in shares instead of investing in fleet, etc etc.
She is part of the old guard. Nothing will change. Just another snout in the trough.
The following 3 users liked this post by Colonel_Klink:
If her first video to staff is anything to go by she doesn’t get it. We have to get back the trust of our customers she says but fails to mention anything about firstly getting back the trust of the staff. Maybe drop the 2 year wage freeze when inflation is running so high, maybe stop threatening staff that if they don’t vote up their EAs they won’t get their back pay.
The following 9 users liked this post by dragon man:
‘POOR SERVICE’: QANTAS FAILS TOFLY FOR INVESTORS
Glen NorrisQantas will struggle to restore its tarnished reputation with investors as poor service and expensive fares helped push its shares lower than they were before the arrival of Alan Joyce 15 years ago, fund manager Angus Aitken said.
The Aitken Mount Capital Partners founder said new chief executive Vanessa Hudson is going to have to “massively clear the decks” and accept lower profits as she rebuilds the national carrier.
“We put a sell on Qantas at $6.40 for a simple reason, every time you fly them you see the service is sh*t and the airfares are expensive,” Mr Aitken said.
“Fund managers, mega long on Qantas for long periods of time, could not see anything other than low capital expenditure and high profits due to high airfares and limited new capacity.
“They missed the fact businesses have to do more than just maximise profit to have a great long duration businesses.” A long position means you hold the stock. Qantas shares closed on Wednesday at $5.70, trading below the $5.91 they were at in October 2007.
Mr Aitken said if there was one key lesson from Qantas it was that boards should not let “super star chief executives have too much rope when the financial returns are strong”.
“We have seen it hundreds of times around the world where the CEO thinks they are bigger than the brand and it all blows up for some reason,” Mr Aitken said.
Viridian Financial Group chief investment officer Piers Bolger said the current board, starting with the chair and senior management, needed to take a greater level of accountability.
“Not only does the company need to restore its ‘service’ brand, which will involve a further advertising blitz and potential cost to the bottom line via discounted airfares, it also needs to spend heavily on its ageing fleet,” Mr Bolger said.
The Qantas loyalty program, which continues to be the company’s shining light given the diverse range of partners and its strong cashflow, would be as important as ever as the company moves forward.
Mr Bolger said Qantas had enjoyed the protection of federal governments of both persuasions for a long period of time and had been able to aggressively position itself as the prime aviation business in Australia.
But the recent Senate hearings had clearly demonstrated some basic failings around the business, particularly in relation to transparency across a range of issues, most notably the value of unclaimed flight credits.
“Declining service levels and exorbitant ticket prices out of the pandemic, coupled with record profits and bonuses paid to senior executives, including former CEO Alan Joyce, after the airline received in excess of $2.5bn in government subsidies through Covid relief reflects a business that is simply out of touch with the broader market,” he added.
Hunter Green Institutional Broking director Charlie Green said that even a new leadership team at Qantas would struggle against its history as a “terrible long-term investment”.
“The people who are perhaps crowing are the ones who bought it pre-Covid around $3 but over the long term it has been a very frustrating investment,” Mr Green said.
Glen NorrisQantas will struggle to restore its tarnished reputation with investors as poor service and expensive fares helped push its shares lower than they were before the arrival of Alan Joyce 15 years ago, fund manager Angus Aitken said.
The Aitken Mount Capital Partners founder said new chief executive Vanessa Hudson is going to have to “massively clear the decks” and accept lower profits as she rebuilds the national carrier.
“We put a sell on Qantas at $6.40 for a simple reason, every time you fly them you see the service is sh*t and the airfares are expensive,” Mr Aitken said.
“Fund managers, mega long on Qantas for long periods of time, could not see anything other than low capital expenditure and high profits due to high airfares and limited new capacity.
“They missed the fact businesses have to do more than just maximise profit to have a great long duration businesses.” A long position means you hold the stock. Qantas shares closed on Wednesday at $5.70, trading below the $5.91 they were at in October 2007.
Mr Aitken said if there was one key lesson from Qantas it was that boards should not let “super star chief executives have too much rope when the financial returns are strong”.
“We have seen it hundreds of times around the world where the CEO thinks they are bigger than the brand and it all blows up for some reason,” Mr Aitken said.
Viridian Financial Group chief investment officer Piers Bolger said the current board, starting with the chair and senior management, needed to take a greater level of accountability.
“Not only does the company need to restore its ‘service’ brand, which will involve a further advertising blitz and potential cost to the bottom line via discounted airfares, it also needs to spend heavily on its ageing fleet,” Mr Bolger said.
The Qantas loyalty program, which continues to be the company’s shining light given the diverse range of partners and its strong cashflow, would be as important as ever as the company moves forward.
Mr Bolger said Qantas had enjoyed the protection of federal governments of both persuasions for a long period of time and had been able to aggressively position itself as the prime aviation business in Australia.
But the recent Senate hearings had clearly demonstrated some basic failings around the business, particularly in relation to transparency across a range of issues, most notably the value of unclaimed flight credits.
“Declining service levels and exorbitant ticket prices out of the pandemic, coupled with record profits and bonuses paid to senior executives, including former CEO Alan Joyce, after the airline received in excess of $2.5bn in government subsidies through Covid relief reflects a business that is simply out of touch with the broader market,” he added.
Hunter Green Institutional Broking director Charlie Green said that even a new leadership team at Qantas would struggle against its history as a “terrible long-term investment”.
“The people who are perhaps crowing are the ones who bought it pre-Covid around $3 but over the long term it has been a very frustrating investment,” Mr Green said.
She has been stead fast next to Joyce during all of the issues that are plaguing the airline.
As an executive manager it’s hard to think that she was not at least knowledgeable (let alone complicit) in the illegal sacking off staff, ripping off customers by charging for flights that were already cancelled, making it extremely difficult for customers to access refunds for flights they weren’t able to fly, deciding to buy back $100s of millions in shares instead of investing in fleet, etc etc.
She is part of the old guard. Nothing will change. Just another snout in the trough.
As an executive manager it’s hard to think that she was not at least knowledgeable (let alone complicit) in the illegal sacking off staff, ripping off customers by charging for flights that were already cancelled, making it extremely difficult for customers to access refunds for flights they weren’t able to fly, deciding to buy back $100s of millions in shares instead of investing in fleet, etc etc.
She is part of the old guard. Nothing will change. Just another snout in the trough.
As you say she was the CFO & being in that position there are only 2 possibilities that i see
1, she is fully aware of how tickets were being sold & money held whilst at the same time making it almost impossible for the customers to get refunds
OR
2 she has no idea what the job she was doing required & was being instructed on a day to day basis by her little best mate on how to play the system & make themselves answerable to nobody.
The following users liked this post:
Those two points blubak go all the way back to the lockout, if not before. You are absolutely correct.