|
And so say all of us! Nice job Direct. I hope it's not lost on some.
|
So direct and keg, I am unclear. Are you suggesting that I withdraw my application from Impulse based on your suggestion that I will struggle on the money they offer. Don’t you think that’s an issue for me to sort out, not you.
The salaries at QF mainline stand out like Mt Everest when benchmarked against similar aircraft types in the region – Aus/Pacific. This is an observation, not a criticism of QF pilots. Direct, You are placing a value on the job of flying based purely on your perspective. If it’s not worth 95000 dollars a year TO YOU, then don’t apply. Others have different perspectives. Ability to affect change within the organization is one. So is aircraft type. Location is a huge factor. Don’t try and tell others how they should value their own job. You are gravely concerned about the “future direction” your airline is taking. I would suggest that Dixon is taking positive steps to ensure your airline has a direction to take. Ansett did little to combat the low cost threat from Impulse and Virgin and fell to the canvas with a rapid thud. QF faces competitors unlike ever before – similar to the ones facing carriers in other parts of the world. Air Tran now has almost as much capital as Delta. Same with Ryanair and BA. Valueair is about to make an assault on SQ, as AirAsia already has. Dixon drew the line in the sand as VB ate into QF’s market share. Now, it appears that VB has arrived at that line with little intention of slowing down. QF still offers poor service, operates old and often dirty aircraft, has an on time performance record so poor that even Dixon acknowledges it is in need of attention and still has decades of industrial inefficiencies not affecting VB and yet all you QF ppruners can do is blame this business conundrum on pilots seeking to be part of the action – people not even working for QF - in order to ensure your salary Is not touched. Something is amiss with this argument. |
My goodness.
Well, with people like this I guess our industry has no hope. Pitting pilots against one another are we now? How seriously unprofessional do you get? You just don't understand, do you? DM and James, this is not about a pissing contest. What you blokes do in the next few months may dictate the future of pay and conditions in aussie. Simple as that. If you want them to continue their downward spiral, by all means continue your campaign. But if you can't even attempt to understand the point without resorting to responses such as the last two, then I guess there really is no hope. Chad, no-one is saying don't apply. You obviously don't understand. This is a slightly bigger issue here, than just you and your Impulse mates, right here, right now. Ten years from now, when plumbers, brickies and plasterers are earning $200K and pilots are earning $95K, will you sit up and take notice then? |
No matter what happens in the future as to who ends up flying for "Skimpy", the conditions of employment for everyone in the Airline industry will be under extreme pressure......the corporate greed will try to whittle down the conditions even more! Virgin will suffer this just as much as QF mainline, and they will not leave "Skimpy" alone either!
I am sure this is a long term plan of QF management which has been hurried along by the advent of Virgin, why would Oldmeadow have been with QF for the last couple of years? Setting up different little airlines, devide and conquer! I believe that AIPA has been caught napping, they should have seen this comming when QF bought Impulse and with the start up of Australian Airlines, they have a lot to answer for to their members. :mad: To me the Airline industry in Australia is degenerating to the likes of GA, it is just about stuffed! I have only a few years to go, but I feel for those that do not. I certainly would not encourage any of my children to follow my footsteps. I now believe the only loyalty pilots should have at work is to their passengers!!!!!!! |
Hi Chad's Funk Blaster.
At no stage, have I recommended you withdraw your application or suggested that the salary you choose to work for is an issue for anyone but yourself. I AM NOT BLAMING YOU FOR THIS SITUATION! As I said, you were royally shafted. I am sorry for what happened to you. I can't appreciate what it was like for you. That said, Ansett was falling towards the canvas well and truly before Impulse and Virgin Blue came along - but that's another issue. Firstly, at 95K for an F/O, I might look at applying. But we're not looking at 95K. Extracted directly from the Impulse Pilot's Certified Agreement to which someone has a link on the previous page. For a B717 pilot, Year 1 Captain $115,000, year 3 captain $122,004 Year 1 F/O, $69,000, year 3 F/O, $73,202 So I was even overoptimistic in my quoted figure of 75K a year. At no point did I mention 95K a year except in response to DLFs lovely little post. As I said, if that's acceptable to you, and it may well be for a number of circumstances, go ahead. I would again remind you of the fact that the company would value the Cabin Crew down the back of our longhaul flights more highly than they value you. If that's what they think with regard to salaries, what about all the other aspects of your Professional Life? Once again, let's be realistic. QF is nowhere near where Ansett was. There was $2.5 billion cash on the balance sheet last year. That's short for excess money that the board doesn't want people to know about aka "a fighting fund". You all know about last year's profit in the face of extreme adversity. Aeroplanes are getting fuller with load factors running in the high 70s to 80s. Anecdotally, the last two flights I've flown have had 100% LF. Yields are improving as fares are rising again. Assuming no major disasters - which I wouldn't put aside - this year will be a HUGE year for QF. IMHO watch for a record profit. Fundamentally, this airline is safe, secure and growing. My argument is this, plain and simple. Why should pilots - collectively - aim for the lowest possible salary when looking at crewing this airline? Take a deep breath and ask yourself why you got into this job. I got into it for a love of flying, but not at the expense of every other facet of my life. When you stop and think about the instability in your home life, the time away from loved ones, the extended times on reserve, the inability to plan even tomorrow let alone next week are you worth more than $69,000 a year as a Professional Pilot entrusted with the degree of responsibility that you are? I would suspect if you asked most of the travelling public they would say "Yes!!" So why shouldn't we think so as well? Value yourself for what you are worth. This is NOT a personal attack on anyone, Impulse or ex-Ansett or from wherever, about the circumstances that may lead you to apply. I appreciate individual circumstances are all different. But please, give thought to what you and your profession are worth. Once again, please keep any personal attacks to a minimum. Let's try and move this debate forward. Here endeth the lesson.:) |
Direct's right on the money.
QF faces competitors unlike ever before – similar to the ones facing carriers in other parts of the world. Air Tran now has almost as much capital as Delta. Same with Ryanair and BA. Valueair is about to make an assault on SQ, as AirAsia already has. As Direct quietly suggested, assuming no major disasters, expect a record result from the big Q this year. Dixon drew the line in the sand as VB ate into QF’s market share. Now, it appears that VB has arrived at that line with little intention of slowing down. As for Virgin's market share to begin with - in the space of one day Qantas was handed 90%+ on a platter - everyone (including them) conceded that it was absolutely impossible to hang onto this, and that's where the 'line in the sand' comes from (in the same way that Godfrey concede's Virgin 'can't touch' the top 20% of the market with its business plan, Qantas mainline 'can't touch' the bottom 20% with it's own. Skimpy resolves that conundrum quite nicely.. So no, the sky isn't falling for Qantas (or Virgin) at all. Why, then, value yourselves as though it is? ED |
There are two extremes with respect to pay and conditions. At one end, pilots want to be paid lots of money ( Fair enough) and the airline wants to pay as little as it can (Fair enough). But why start negotiating pay at the lower end of the pay scale? And $75000 per year for a FO on a 737 surely is at the lower end, don't baggage handlers get paid more than that, and yes a Long Haul CSM would be paid more, and a Flight Attendant not far off. You deserve more than that for the skill sets and levels of responsibility you have.
|
As mentioned previously ( numerous times ) , if you want to be up to your arms in sh1t 5-6 days a week, 8-10 hours a day for your 100K, go right ahead.
Plumber charged $180 for an hour and 20 minutes, this included his call out fee, super, sick leave, annual leave, workers comp. , GST etc. I can guarantee you he was'nt earning $135 an hour. At NJS, I got paid more than that, averaged 12 days off a month ( inc. unused reserve days ), was home nearly every night, 6 weeks holidays, sick leave, super etc. And where did the 95K come from ?, IMP captains earn alot more than that. Since the stats say that less than 5% of the working population are on over 100K/annum, there are obviously alot less tradesman around than I thought. Mr.Nightmare, you're a classic example of an LHP are'nt you ?:ok: This is in no way comparable to '89, these guys are employed by a company and basically doing what there told, you should all be directing your invective towrd GD and Co. |
Plumbers, Brickies and Plasterers earn more cause they work a $hitload harder than I ever have.
Come on kids - 5 hrs a day in a 73 isnt exactly hard work. I worked harder flying scenics in a 210. |
...sigh.... Here we go again.... idiotic comparisons between what plumbers and pilots make.
Can we look at it from the correct perspective please? John Laws just signed a contract to stay on at 2UE for another seven years. While the details of the contract are not public we can safely assume it is for mega-bucks. The man is on air for 3 hours a day. Obviously he just doesn't rock up to the golden microphone at 9.00am every day but lets say he puts another 3 hours into his show. Obviously if you turned his contract into a per hour figure, it would come to an impressive amount. NO-ONE WORKS THAT HARD!! Well it is true.... on an hourly rate, no-one can justify what John Laws earns in terms of pure exertion... nor can you justify what a film star gets paid on pure manual labour value. What some mental giants in here do not comprehend is that these people are being paid on the basis of their ECONOMIC WORTH to their employers. The amount of money that having John Laws behind a microphone or Tom Cruise on the screen is worth to their employer. IT IS NOT the hours they put in... So we come to the economic worth of a pilot. Since we are discussing the LCC lets look at the 737. What is the economic worth of a 737 pilot? The Companies will tell you their pilots are valued employees upon whom the safety reputation of the airline ultimately rests. Think about that statement for a company like Qantas. An NG pilot will fly his 100 million dollar jet to ports such as Broome, Maroochydore and Uluru, carrying 185 pax at a time. they do this at all hours, in all weather conditions. In the course of the day they will encounter numerous threats to the operation. They must percieve each of these threats, and have the experience and foresight to manage each one routinely. It only takes one accident.... A 737 Captain should have the following desirable traits.. Flying ability of a high order Experience.. several thousand hours worth on jets Level headedness.... Situational awareness..... Common sense...... The ability to manage a crew... The ability to interact with the public...... The abilty to combine all of the above into a safe and efficent operation... The abilty to combine all of the above at 4.00 am on a dark night with a red light flashing on the console....... I could go on at length but the point is to those of you who insist on devaluing your profession is that you seem to have little idea of your own worth. The economic worth to any company of a safe flight, each and every time an aeroplane in their livery takes to the air is incalculable. With all that is at stake..220 dollars an hour is a bargain.... 120k a year is a insult!! Leave the plumbing to the plumbers |
The Gospel According to St Walter E. Kurtz.
QF pilots as a 'group' and - and I generalise here - have lacked vision. What has the AIPA REALLY done to protect the conditions of crews, and what have the crews, as MEMBERS OF THE AIPA, active done to protect their conditions??
Let me list the warning signs threatening mainline pay and conditions that have been popping up and been ignored: Impulse Acquisition, Australian Airlines (new), Qantas NZ , general staff restructuring. Pretty obvious markers as to management intent on driving labour costs down, but with your head in the sand, well you have a better chance of not being seen, right? QF have been making money, are cashed up, yet Dixon has been crying poor and 'the end is neigh', and you sit as high priests of the QF cockpit, up to your neck in ****e and not making 'waves'. You have not taken any hard decisions, no lines have been drawn in the sand,no strike action or labour disruptions, just constant appeasement in the hope that the demands will stop, and as evident on this forum, an expectation that pilots not of mainline should keep away from the new LCC and preserve things for mainline. You demonise all sorts of contenders, slander the professional ability of non mainline pilots groups, and lay the blame for your woes at the feet of others. The barbarians ARE at the gate - make no mistake - and management is playing right up to this. With impunity. Whilst there is no general pilots group - no unified workforce or fraternity - one responsible for the welfare of ALL pilots - it will be an ever tightening downward spiral. A 75grand job flying in an airline, is Valhalla for some chump busting his ass in a clapped out chieftain, flying around single pilot at the @rsehole of nowhere for $140 day, and being treated like ****e in the process, up to his/her neck in credit card debt. Ahh, but 'that's GA". (read: let them eat cake) When you are at the top, it's very easy to forget from whence you came, and not give a toss about the poor unwashed masses - a bit like Louis XV I suppose - until they come battering at your ivory towers. Then it's a case of Le Miserables having to carry the can for 'lowering the standard'. Got nothing to do with greedy management, and a weak workforce, does it? |
Unfortunately, it is easy to perceive the ogre to be Impulse or NJS or Virgin. The reality is the the problems for mainline crews lie from within. You make much of the "responsibility" etc of the profession.
If a crew can plant a 747-400 in the 19th hole of a you know where and NOT BE HELD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for their shortcomings (read: GET SACKED) the why should you get paid the big bucks???? That episode and the ensuing inquiry was a disgrace and is a bigger blight on the profession than Impulse crews negotiating a future beyond the 717. No one else is going to help them, so don't blame them. I hope this P*sses of a few people, It's the TRUTH. |
'Have got it on good authority that the new name of the QF LCC will be 'ROO'.
Zuluman |
ROO -BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
They could merge with United's new LCC 'TED' and you have
ROOTED :E My suggestions OZAIR EUREKA OCKA REDAIR QUOKKA |
Mulga, the only truth expoused tonight is that you understand little about aircraft prangs. A whole bunch of different things have to go wrong before an aircraft ends up off the end of the runway. The crew is just one or two of them.
Let he who is without sin.... :mad: |
I find it incredible that most 744 second officers will earn more than captains flying for the LCC if wages suggested on this forum are correct.
Primary responsibility for the LCC captain. The safety of 180 passengers. Primary responsibilty of a 2nd officer. Folding the flight plan into an amusing yet functional shape. It just don't add up. Still I would happily accept $120k to get my arse back in an Airbus. Sit back and enjoy |
has the horse bolted?
Col. Walter touched on a couple of warnings the Qantas pilot group and AIPA had,
“Let me list the warning signs threatening mainline pay and conditions that have been popping up and been ignored: Impulse Acquisition, Australian Airlines (new), Qantas NZ , general staff restructuring” What about when Qantas Started Airlink, (national Jet) jet flying was given to a subsidiary not even owned by Qantas, what about when Southern Australian Airlines started operating Jets, the Qantas Pilot group and AIPA did nothing to protect the wages and conditions then so why now. :rolleyes: |
Col. Kurtz,
On another thread you continually bemoaned the fact that QF mainline pilots were not offering an opinion. The reason for this is because, in your mind, there is no room for argument/discussion. You have your opinion on what should be happening and that's it! However, your last post has made me decide to enter the fray regardless. Firstly, let me see if I have your argument correct. You feel that QF pilots should be embarked on a full-scale industrial campaign to defend (to the death) the future conditions of the barbarians at the gate who would climb over each other's cold, dead bodies to pay for the right to work for our employer if QF decided to sack us all! You find this logical and reasonable? Okay, let me put a few points forward for discussion: 1. My understanding of current industrial law is that industrial action can only take place during "sanctioned" periods (such as enterprise bargaining negotiations). The days of downing tools at any time that you feel agrieved seem to be over. 2. Huge fines can be levied on organisations that break industrial laws. I believe that this is one of the reasons that AIPA and the AFAP have never merged - AIPA would then be responsible for the millions of dollars in fines that the AFAP incurred in 1989. 3. Don't you think that QF would have batteries of lawyers engaged in determining whether their current corporate plans are allowable under industrial law? Yes, AIPA have lawyers also, but these are funded by member's contributions and do not have the millions (billions?) at their disposal that the QF lawyers have. Any lengthy legal action against QF would also cost AIPA and its members many millions of dollars. 4. Don't you think that the availability of many pilots who would fly our jobs for a fraction of the price would seriously undermine the QF pilot's position duirng any industrial action? On this forum these pilots continually state that we are arrogant, overpaid, lazy prima donnas and that they would willingly fly our jobs for less any time that we are tired of them. Should we engage in industrial war to defend the conditions of those who hold us in such low regard and would stab us in the back in a heartbeat? 5. In 1989, I'm sure that those pilots involved in the industrial action felt that their position was strenthened due to the lack of available and skilled pilots to replace them. This is not the case in 2003 due to point 4 above, plus the fact that all QF would have to do would be to offer wages somewhere between QF and VB rates and VB's pilot workforce would probably evaporate overnight. 6. The argument used by those pilots who vent their spleen against QF pilots on this forum say that it is they who have had to work in crappy places overseas; it is their family and mortgage that they have to worry about; and it is their job satisfaction (by flying those shiny new jets eh New Generation) that concerns them, not anything that those arrogant, lazy, overpaid QF pilots have to say. Why then should QF mainline pilots be prepared to risk their jobs, mortgages, families and financial security by engaging in serious industrial conflict to defend the future conditions of those who would seek to so willingly undercut our pay and conditions, and do so with apparent pleasure? 7. "Pilot unity" and "supply and demand" are phrases often thrown around on this forum. Supply and demand is most commonly used in the context of "well, this is the going crappy pay rate and I must accept it." Supply and demand also has a flip side - if no pilots are prepared to accept those crappy conditions, then they might actually have to be increased. This action would also require pilot unity, but is usually met with the reaction that: "Gee those arrogant, lazy, overpaid QF pilots expect us to give up the chance of a shiny jet job just so thay can continue to get overpaid." Wrong - these actions are the most immediate way of stopping the erosion of pay and conditions. If you are prepared to accept very crappy levels of pay, how can you justify spending the many thousands of after-tax dollars necessary to pay for your own jet endorsement? So let me summarise. The advent of the QF LCC is causing a lot of concern in the QF mainline pilot body. We see it for what it is - an attempt to further reduce costs by devaluing our profession! But waging industrial action is a VERY SERIOUS issue that would require a united resolve, safe in the knowledge that our actions would be in full compliance with the law. To expect us to wage industrial war to protect the conditions of those who would undercut us is as realistic as us expecting those who would undercut us to forego their shiny jet jobs to protect our pay and conditions. And therefore we have a stalemate! Colonel, if QF pilots go on strike - and many are still mindful of the smoking ruin of 1989 - it will be to protect our pay and conditions. I'm sure that those on this forum who are equally concerned with their own particular situation will fully understand!! |
Balance. You have started to believe your own propoganda. As Mulgabill put it. No one has ever been interested in helping the pulse crews achieve wage reform. No help from the big player unions. Now the low cost carrier has come about the pulse blokes get villafied for trying to secure a future for themselves. Maybe if AIPA had been intersted in helping in the first place things would be different. So, being left to fend for themselves they have done the best they can. The level of arrogance that has surfaced since the inception of the LCC has been amazing.
I find it amazing that S/Os, obviously young, post about the safety issues of crewing the LCC. Laughable. Why would you try to placate a group who has never accepted or helped you? Common sence really. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe the mother company wants division and infighting. Think about it. They are just giving you enough rope. Cheers DM |
DM,
From memory, AIPA did have discussions with the Impulse pilot group, shortly after it was taken over by Qantas. I don't know what the outcome was, but has the IPG ever asked for AIPA membership? Secondly, all QF pilots are S/Os at some point in their careers. Some have substantial military or civilian experience before they become S/Os. Many progress to be F/Os as soon as they can, while others remain as S/Os - this is their right under our contract. Some are now upset that they may have to remain as S/Os even longer, because of the jobs that may disappear as the result of the LCC. To demean another pilot's argument, purely on the basis of their rank, smacks of the arrogance that is so often attributed to mainline QF pilots. |
Three Bars, it was just an example. As I made the point in earlyer posts, the pilots just fly the planes to eak out a living. The average guy has no control over conditions or offers made for the LCC.
A cross roads where every direction is not realy an option. Certainly a difficult postion to be put in. My understanding is that full AIPA membership has never been available to Pulse blokes. This might be incorrect. Im not exactly sure as to the out come of those early meetings. What Id like to know is why there is a need for a LCC when execs get large bonus packages? Ive obviously missed something there. |
Thanks for the off thread point there, DM, but I'm not a S/O. And that would be irrelevant anyway. And frankly, as three bars correctly points out, the majority of S/O's in QF are highly experienced GA and military operators. So please keep your arrogance to yourself.
Now to the crux of your last post. Why should AIPA help you, as you infer that they should? And for that matter, why winge that nobody has attempted to "help" the IPG. Can't you guys help yourselves? Can't you see that the offer presently on the table is way substandard? (YES or NO answer please). No point in getting on here and complaining that no-one is "trying to help you", any more than us QF guys getting on here and complaining that the IPG are trying to undercut us. It's a simple matter of action. And whilst I'm suddenly seeing action on AIPA's part for their members, I see or hear nothing from the IPG trying to improve their lot. And yes, you are quite correct. Dividing and conquering is a tool GD and his thugs like to use. We can't let them. Nor can you. |
"Possible Name for the LCC : Roo"
My suggestions Thong! ;) Esky! Champ! oo-roo :ok: |
Mulgabill,
Do you really think that accepting the same pay and conditions that you currently enjoy on the 717 to fly a larger aircraft, is as you put it "negotiating a future beyond the 717" ? If you really believe that then you truly deserve it! Goodluck. |
DM
The average guy has no control over conditions or offers made for the LCC. You guys could offer DJ conditions and QF will proabably go for it. I really doubt that they could get a green fields operation up and going in the time frame that they want so that means Impulse or mainline (not withstanding GDs comments about it being green fields or Impulse). That means that they'll pay a 'reasonable' wage. If you guys are silly enough to offer current conditions to guarantee your future than you deserve every cent you don't get. Regards, |
Balance has said...
"And frankly, as three bars correctly points out, the majority of S/O's in QF are highly experienced GA and military operators. So please keep your arrogance to yourself." Highly experienced GA and military operators are highly inexperienced airline pilots, Balance. You may not like it, but it's true! |
AAP
15:03 AEDT Sun 16 Nov 2003 New Qantas airline no threat: Virgin Virgin Blue chief executive Brett Godfrey does not see a threat coming from the planned Qantas Airways Ltd discount airline believing it won't get below Virgin's costs structure. Mr Godfrey said Virgin's no-frills model has the lowest operating costs and the lowest priced seats in the country. "I'm pretty confident that even Qantas is going to find it difficult to get below cost our costs structure," Mr Godfrey told Channel Nine's Business Sunday. Australia's flagship carrier Qantas is launching a new discount domestic airline next May to take on Richard Branson's Virgin Blue in a head-to-head battle for travellers. "We've secured very, very long term and very, very good deals with Boeing on our fleet, not just for the next year or two, but for the next decade," Mr Godfrey said. He said Virgin, with around 30 per cent of the market, had also locked in strong long term deals at the prime airports. "My fundamental strategy is to make sure we maintain the absolutely lowest cost base of any airline in this country and I believe the revenues will still come," he said. With Virgin Blue going public soon, Mr Godfrey said the appointment of Patrick Corp Ltd chief executive and Virgin part owner Chris Corrigan as chairman will not signal radical change. "I don't think it changes too much - historically the management team have run this business," Mr Godfrey said. "I think (Chris Corrigan) has said he doesn't think there is too much wrong with the business at the moment and so I guess, as far as I'm concerned, it will be business as usual." Virgin's founder Sir Richard Branson is selling a substantial stake in the company in the float which is expected to raise around $500 million leaving Mr Corrigan as the biggest individual shareholder. AAP ============================================ Mon "The Australian" Qantas can't match us: Virgin By Michael Sainsbury November 17, 2003 Virgin Blue chief executive Brett Godfrey does not believe Qantas can operate a new cut-price airline with a lower cost base than Virgin's. Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon said last week the company would unveil the new carrier within the next two weeks and that it would not have Qantas in its name. But Mr Godfrey said Qantas would find it difficult to create cost structure as low or lower than the Virgin model, which had helped it grab about a third of the Australian market. "They've talked about it entering on to the leisure routes," Mr Godfrey said. "We don't make our money just on leisure routes. We've got 65 per cent of our capacity on the major routes, the triangle. We believe our model has the lowest operating costs. "We have the lowest seats, the lowest priced seats in the country and the lowest costed seats in the country, and I'm pretty confident that even Qantas is going to find it difficult to get below our cost structure. "We've secured very, very long-term and very, very good deals with Boeing on our fleet, not just for the next year or two, but for the next decade." His comments back up those of Virgin founder Richard Branson, who has poured scorn on Qantas's plans. "No other major airline in the world has successfully launched a discount airline," Sir Richard said. In the year to March 2003, Virgin Blue posted a profit of $107 million on sales of $914 million. In the prospectus for its forthcoming float, Virgin Blue forecasts that in the year to March 2004 revenue will be $1.386 billion with a profit of $150 million. Virgin has gained its cost advantage by running a fleet with only one model of aircraft, having a new fleet which needs less maintenance and paying lower wages. But observers argue that these start-up benefits will deteriorate. Mr Godfrey, who stands to reap about $80 million from the float, claimed that money was not his motivation. "I've always said that to me the challenge is getting up and doing better and better," he said. Mr Godfrey said 85 per cent of the Australian market could be available to Virgin. "I'm a very firm believer that there is only about 15 per cent of this market that we can't aspire to attain with our current model, so there is 85 per cent up for grabs," he said. "Whether we get 30 or 35 or 40 per cent, ultimately, I'm not really too concerned. "The important thing is to have profitable growth and maintain a significant enough margin which we have to our major competitor today." ============================================ |
And you think it's rough here !!
AFP AirAsia spooks THAI offering AFP The launch of new budget carrier AirAsia, half-owned by the family firm of Thailand’s premier Thaksin Shinawatra, has sparked a storm of controversy and criticism it will undercut the national carrier, Thai Airways, just before a major share offering. AirAsia announced last week that from January it would begin flying to popular Thai destinations, including the northern city of Chiang Mai and the holiday island of Phuket, at half the fare charged by the beleaguered Thai Airways. Shin Corp, the telecoms empire which made Thaksin a billionaire before he went into politics and transferred control to his family, will own 51 percent of AirAsia Aviation in partnership with Malaysian low-cost carrier AirAsia. Pro-democracy activists, competing airlines and aviation analysts are alarmed at the prospect of a carrier with close links to the prime minister competing directly with Thai Airways, which stands to be the big loser. “This is unacceptable, it’s tantamount to sabotage,“ said Udom Tantiprasongchai, president of low-cost Orient Thai Airlines which is at risk of being swept aside by AirAsia. “It’s a farce — no other country in the world would invite foreign airlines to operate domestic routes, the air traffic rights should be preserved for local operators,“ he said. The timing of the AirAsia launch announcement last week is particularly unfortunate, coming ahead of an offering of 385 million Thai Airways shares which will reduce its government ownership from 93 percent to 70 percent. “It could lead to less interest from investors, even if right now Thai is quite a profitable company,“ said an independent aviation analyst in Bangkok after the airline announced a 22 percent increase in annual profit Friday. The Malaysian arm of AirAsia, which is following in the footsteps of successful European budget operators like EasyJet and Ryanair, has discounted as “irrelevant“ the links to Thaksin but commentators in Thailand disagree. “It’s true that going with Thaksin is a fantastic advantage in the Thai market. He rules the country and every single project is decided by him, including all the aviation industry projects,“ the analyst said. “That could lead perhaps to a boost for AirAsia and a decline in the domestic market for Thai Airways. It could be dangerous for them.“ Suriyasai Katasila of Thailand’s Campaign for Popular Democracy said the deal was improper and could be the downfall of the Thaksin administration which swept to power in January 2001 with an unprecedented parliamentary majority. “Shin Corp should not use its political advantage to gain pace over other competitors and Prime Minister Thaksin also must be very cautious with regards to the family business,“ he said. Suriyasai said it was clear Thaksin was still at the helm of Shin Corp despite the ownership shift to his wife and children. “It’s laughable whenever somebody raises this issue. His son still lives with his parents — if he’s honest about it, why doesn’t he transfer his shares to a legal entity?“ he said. “I think this issue will trigger the downfall of the Thaksin government. Thaksin must draw a clear line between his family business interests and the public interest.“ The democracy campaigner said that although in the short term the advent of the low-cost carrier would benefit the public, if it managed to put its competitors out of business, it could turn itself into a monopoly. Spurred into action by the new threat, Orient Thai plans to launch flights between Bangkok and Chiang Mai from December at a cost of 999 baht ($25), one baht lower than AirAsia and half the cost of a Thai Airways flight. “I am ready to fight and will directly position my business to confront AirAsia by operating flights on the same routes,“ said Udom, whose airline has operated for a decade, mostly in the charter business. Thai Airways, criticised by Thaksin as lumbering and slow to innovate, is also planning to break into the budget airline business with “Sky Asia“ due to launch in April on the lucrative routes from Bangkok to Chiang Mai and Phuket. But analysts say the initiative is too little too late. Far from having any reservations over the possible effects on Thai Airways, Thaksin warned last week that the carrier must lift its game. “Everybody must adjust themselves. In the near future there will be no monopoly and every business sector will be liberated,“ he told reporters. Thai Airways, which Thaksin once famously declared “sucked“ because of its poor service standards, would be relegated to servicing the niche market of upscale passengers, he said. The government has also admitted that the financially ailing State Railway of Thailand will be harmed as AirAsia’s fares will be on a par with rates for air-conditioned rail carriages. “This conflict of interest is not the best way to develop a country,“ said the independent analyst, adding however that Thailand’s richest man had an unerring nose for a good deal. “Thaksin has seen the fantastic development of low-cost carriers and this business could have some synergy with his telecoms network. The investment is not that great and it’s a good way to enter the transport business,“ he said. “It’s true that for normal democratic countries it would be really very strange, but that’s the way business is done in Thailand.“ =========================================== |
With comments like that, Amos, you'd make a good 744 Captain in QF! I think you take my point though...
|
Amos2,
Over a third of the 744 second officers are ex AN drivers with a minimum of 7 years RPT jet experience before joining QF. They are not all 20 year old pimply faced cadets. |
Monday November 17, 10:05 AM AEDT
Qantas Mgmt To Recommend Airbus For Discount Ops- Source SYDNEY (Dow Jones)--Qantas Airways Ltd. management is expected to recommend to its board the acquisition of a number of Airbus A320s for its low-cost budget airline, according to an industry source Monday. Qantas is believed to have told Boeing Co. late last week that it was unsuccessful in securing the contract for the budget airline, which will takeoff in May. The Australian national carrier hasn't said how many planes it will buy for the offshoot or how many planes it will use from its existing fleet. By mid-2005, the budget domestic airline will have a fleet of 23 aircraft. Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon told reporters last Thursday that a recommendation will be put to Qantas' board early this week. Qantas wasn't immediately available to comment on the plane order. =========================================== |
"His comments back up those of Virgin founder Richard Branson, who has poured scorn on Qantas's plans. "No other major airline in the world has successfully launched a discount airline," Sir Richard said. "
Yeah, but no other major airline made half a billion bucks last year either!! :hmm: Also, "They've talked about it entering on to the leisure routes," Mr Godfrey said. "We don't make our money just on leisure routes. We've got 65 per cent of our capacity on the major routes, the triangle. If even Brett Godfrey's believing the propaganda, maybe he's not as smart as I thought. |
Amos,
Have to agree with the librarian, since the AN collapse there are many, many S/O's around with 7 years of RPT jet experience - both narrow and wide body. This should be kept in mind by all keen to "stereotype" the junior QF pilot as fresh out of a cadetship with 200 hours and living with Mum and Dad in Pymble. |
I think this thread has run it's race.
W |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.