Is Qantas Relevant?
 

There are those (and I am not one of them)who feel that Qantas actually restricts the growth of tourism into Australia.The minister for Qantas,John Anderson protects it,it is not innovative,it is not combative(except toward passengers,travel agents and employees)and it is definitely not competitive.The Qantas network is miniscule(and shrinking)and certainly does not service the needs of the Australian traveller.Qantas cargo is a farce....SIA derives 20% of its profit(not revenue)from cargo
Sure it provides employment for 36,000 Australians,not to mention ancilliary businesses...but there is a looming labour shortage.Aviation agreements would become irrelevant and market forces would reign supreme.
If Qantas folded its tent life would go on.For many it may even be better?
Perhaps this begs the question.....How relevant is Qantas?

QANTAS...QANTAS....QANTAS who??

Seriously though, Australians have been proud of their own airline, which has an enviable Safety recored.

Under Dixon's regime, QANTAS has - and does - continue to be severely diluted, apparently for one reason only, GOD's personal, financial gain.

I'd like to see QANTAS International taken back by the Australian Government - quite frankly, it is now the ONLY way I can see it surviving against the other monolithic, deep-pocketed, state funded airlines.

The JAL's, Singapores, Garuda's, Emirates, Air New Zealand's...are NEVER going to be allowed to fail, regardless of the competition.
QANTAS International needs to be placed on an equal footing, imo!

Economic theory simply says that the "resources" all 36,000 of them will redeploy themselves in the longer term and make a bigger contribution to the economy than they did at Qantas.


I suspect the Qantas brand name is still valuable and I cannot help thinking that "someone" wants to drive its price down and take it off the current investors hands for a song, then polish it up and slip a new airline under it.

Furthermore, the "city pair" idea is very attractive to Melbournites and Brisbanites. Frequent direct services in smaller aircraft please.

AH, Kapt M, the orical speaks.

Could go on for days on this topic. Qantas will be fine for the time being. The brand name is worth a lot and the integration of international and domestic services is not provided by any other airline operating into Australia. However, the fun will be on when:
a) another international airline gets codeshare with VB or another domestic; and,
b) VB, or another domestic, operates useable domestic schedules to places like Darwin (as advised by a colleague).

IMO, when that happens, Qantas needs to target a customer group and focus a little less on trying to outdo every competitors' offerings with little regard to customer impressions. The company is chasing its own tail and trying to be everything to everyone. It's trying to compete and dominate with the LCCs, the luxury services and everything in between. It appears the managers figure they'll eventually find the right mix if they try everything while they continue to try and milk more out of the fixed overheads.

Like many others, I'm still trying to fathom the thought processes behind Jetstar. It's a squeezeplay on VB, QF employees and unions, but it is fraught with all sorts of issues, not least of which is competing against itself. Does it meet the needs and expectations of the customer? Will it take over from Qantas or be a chain around its legs? At this stage, I favour the latter of the two.

To quote a famous management tome called "Up the Organisation" (which is a seriously good read). the strategy of starting a low cost company to target your lower cost competitor, is called "pissing in the soup". It has the same effect, leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

To be fair, QF has done everything it can to distance the J* product from its own to try and avoid cannibalisation. However it won't work, unless VB makes serious mistakes.

The QF mainline product is seen as expensive and bad value for money. J* is seen as cut price and inconvenient - again bad value for money, and VB is seen as being right in the middle - and good value for money - at least in this punters opinion.

Maybe J* should change their uniforms to match their customers? Addidas tracksuits, moccasins and fake tatoos.

Right on bruvvas!:}

Self Destruction
 

It would appear that Qantas is being redundant by its own myopic management.Management that from all accounts think everthing is running smoothly.They obviously don`t get to hear about the dud IFE system,a/c breakdowns,delays,poor food,chronic understaffing.They are without doubt the most remote bunch that Qantas has ever had as governers.
Qantas is going to self destruct not with a bang but a whimper.Just as with AN Little Johnny won`t give a toss as 36,000 employees lose their jobs.He will no doubt inflict another levy on the travelling public just in case there is a shortfall in funds.
If this happens shouldn`t Dixon and his cronies return their bonuses for failing to meet KPIs.I won`t hold my breathe

If that were the case the flighties at the other end of the terminal, would be wearing boardies, thongs, $5 T-shirts and belly rings!!;)

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

HH

Bring it on:ok: :cool:

Mind if I inject a little bit of reality into this debate???

"Qantas yesterday announced a pre-tax profit of $964.6 million for the year ending June 30, 2004.

This result is a 92 per cent increase on last year’s result, and translates to a profit after tax of $648.4 million."

Yup. Qantas definitely appears to be going to the wall, fast!! With a $320 million tax dividend (not counting the millions of dollars in other taxes Qantas also pays), why would the Aussie Government have any interest in supporting Qantas?

Get real! :mad: This may be a rumour network, but a little reality and fact occasionally makes the Moderators job a whole lot less boring!

Woomera

I don't know if it's done for emphasis, but I am 'definately' tired of 'definitely' being incorrectly spelt on D&G. Methinks there may be some Qtendos, *tendos, or VB tendos masquerading as something else on this forum. I fought you lot were edumacated. Woomera, shape up or move on!!!!!!!!

Sorry, Woomera. Long frustrating day working with penisheads and needed to get my frustration out of the system.

--------------------
Frank Burden

The attainment of wisdom is a life long pursuit

Quote
 

There is definitely no such word as definately
Sorry Woomera,I thought we were talking about the demise of the BRAND not its fiscal wellbeing.It is being (quote)cannibalised,euthanised and harvested.The Qantas Group will survive but the Brand "Qantas" as a longhaul carrier appears to have its days numbered.Sorry if I misunderstood.

Woomera, with great respect, the declared profit can be just about anything you want it to be. Telstra have been manipulating theirs for years.

It is simply a matter of the accounting treatment of costs. You can produce what you like. Its all in the assumptions. For example I would expect QF have a series of provisions for frequent flyer point usage, heavy maintenance expense, line maintenance, superannuation expense and so on as well as many "hollow logs" that can be mined for cash to make your figures look the way you want.

For example, you could make zero real profit and just revalue your assets by $900 million and voila! You have $900 million profit provided you can convince your auditors that the revaluation is genuine - and we know how often auditors get it wrong!

In fact when I used to be visited by the external Auditors at AN, I used to talk politely to them for about five minutes, then take them down the hall and through a door - onto the catwalk looking down on B727/B737 in maintenance and watch their jaws drop.. A quick walk through the hangar, a look in the cockpit of a 767, and they would then believe anything I told them.

There is simply no way of knowing without seeing the management accounts. The statutory and taxation accounts tell you very little although some ratio analysis might tell you a little.

Sunfish, The provisions you raise, if omitted or reduced in balance sheet liabilities, will increase, not decrease pre tax profit.

Asset revaluation reserves require realistic justification and Board consent. Qantas 2002 net debt to capitalisation ratio was 63.4% and total capitalisation Aus$ 11.6 billion.

I suggest you read Moody's 2002 Financial Analysis of Qantas Airways Ltd.

With respect, we're talking a major Australian listed public company with Baa1 rating, 30,000 plus employees, 187 aircraft and 142 destinations in 32 countries, not some GA company........

By comparison, Ansett had two, then one only shareholder - and finally, a lot of unhappy creditors!

Woomera

Point of the Thread????
 

187 Aircraft.142 Destinations.32 Countries.
The majority of those aircraft are deployed domestically.(J*etc.)
The majority of those destinations are code share
The countries serviced directly by Qantas Mainline:
UK
Germany
South Africa
India
Singapore
Thailand
Hong Kong
China
Japan
New Zealand
USA
Manilla
Indonesia
13....... Not 32
The point of this thread I thought was the shrinking mainline operation.The shrinking international network.As a GROUP Qantas is thriving.But the mainline international business is shrinking......Why?
QF(mainline) is not competitive and complains about others who are.Why not just get of your backside Dixon and start by mixing it with the big boys.Use some of that Good Old Australian innovation we USED to be famous for.

Woomera

I am certainly reluctant to attract the attention from one of your high standing, however given your last comment I am compelled to aske have you ever heard of Enron.

They managed to circulate and publish figures that were about as far from the truth as you could possibly get. Admittedly it may have been a crime, and I am not suggesting that the Qantas management is anything but legitimate.

I am just making the point that both analysts and accountants can be comprehensively fooled.

Additionally profits are last years news, not next years.

What's more, these profits have been driven to some extent by exactly what coral has suggested. Slashing and burning mainline to create streamlined alternatives. Remeber J* is the second attempt. AO was the first, and given the obvious success of the formula I would expect management to move further toward these models rather than away from them.

This means staff working harder for less. Which means renegotiated EBA's and a finite future for the lucrative jobs that Qantas employees currently enjoy. It won't happen over night but little by little it must happen.

I agree the Qantas name carries enormous brand collateral and will probably never be lost to the World Aviation Scene, but I also agree with other posters that the Qantas of 10 years hence will be but a shell of its current self. It simply has to be if it is to survive the onslaught of overseas carriers.

Given the recent debate about 3rd party access to the Pacific routes, I am guessing that there will be a limit as to how long Q can operate as a sheltered workshop with exclusive rights to the US, which helps create the illusion that Q mainline is able to compete against other carriers. Level playing field or not.


Cop U Later

The Rev

"Economic theory simply says that the "resources" all 36,000 of them will redeploy themselves in the longer term and make a bigger contribution to the economy than they did at Qantas."

This may be true, Sunfish. However,you can bet that those who are "redeployed" wont share in the benefits of being a more productive member of the economy. This is all part of the win-lose outcome that is sought by the current batch of capitalist pigs who run the Australian corporate economy; they win, workers lose.

Those who are retrenched make a bigger contribution to the economy by being more thoroughly exploited upon their eventual re-employment.


That is the nature of contempory capitalist ideoloy.:ooh:

And the remedy is don't be a worker.

Get into management. Become head of AIPA...thats a good start.

Woomera, you don't NOt make provisions in the accounts, you simply vary the amount you provide. And since a "provision" is by nature an amount retained against uncertain future events, the exact amount is for management to discuss.

For example, Telstra in the past hid most of its profits through massive depreciation charges.

Qantas could make its $900+ million profit disappear if it suited it. We have no way of knowing if the figure is reasonable and given the calibre of the Board, anything is possible.

As for QF being a large respected Australian Public Company, so was HIH!

Conclusion?
 

The general consensus appears to be that Qantas Mainline has its days numbered.AO is looking at a 3 class operation with overseas bases,and current east west restrictions on its crews now on the negotiating table.This will further intrude on mainline.
Never thought I would live to see the day:{

I am one of those redundant QF employees! as for being a more productive member of society, definatly Yes! the world Outside the Qf sheltered workshop is vastly different to the percieved world from within the workshop,

and if your a worker and dont want to loose! then dont, become the boss! i have, earning 3 times per week then i did at QF! work monday to fri. and write my own paychecks! not only that i move approx $30 Million worth of stock through QF and AaE! (oh how i pray for an alternative domestic air freight company)

amd when it comes to finances! i havent made a profit in 3 yrs! I even repay half of my pay back to the company to help it out! (income effectivly becomes receipt of a loan repayment, no payroll tax, etc) a good accountant is worth his weight in gold! and im sure Qf can make the books look as good as they want no mater how their "actual" finances look! and now im in the transport game (road/rail) the QF brand is rapidly loosing its gloss!

IMO QF is making its record profits from its staff, internal cost cutting and degredation of its most valuable asset, its brand! Not so long ago, QANTAS meant Quality, safety, and a top range product! now its just another airline.

Divide and Conquer
 

Folks as I see it Qantas management are all about dividing and conquering. Qantas fight their battles abroad - sure - some would argue they are losing there. However Qantas also are fighting battles closer to home (And this is the battle that effects every Australian pilot - both directly and indirectly). Its obvious GD hates the unions (and their members) far more than Singapore Airlines, Emirates etc etc. Look at the last few years. What a job! Many seperate little companies (All under the one BRAND NAME), and the staff of each are all fighting one another.

As the old saying goes "Together we stand. Divided we fall". We, as pilots (and most in the airlines are directly effected by Qantas' decions in some way), are divided. Dicko has it all over us. Pay and conditions continue to worsen - and I will suggest that they have a long way to go yet (Admittedly not all Qantas' doing).

I fear that GD will drive Qantas to purely a BRAND NAME - It is nearly that already. The more he divides us the less relevant any of the unions (we) become.

I am affraid that in this case I am a pessimist - I can not see us sticking together.

What are others thoughts about this?

My thoughts are that this sort of thread is the big downside to Pprune...we tell management exactly how to fck us over.

Can anyone imagine a management forum where we can go and read their plans for us...or where we can glean how to beat them at their own game?

Personally I think that QF's record profits have very little future...extracted as they seem to be from staff rather than expanded route networks/passenger numbers and higher yield.

That is a road with very little distance to the dead end and resulting big wreck....but as we all know management won't be around to be pulled bleeding from the wreckage...just the staff who are generally the only employees who have any real stake in the long term viability of a company like QF.

I actually believe that sooner or later management will piss employees off to such an extent that they will unite employees again...I can see a day when pilots are as united as Doctors and Lawyers....maybe not next year but one day.

What form will it take?

Hard to say...what about membership of a pilot's trade union (in the literal sense of 'trade union') being compulsory to gain employment in any form...from Grade 3 instructor to B744 Captain? Where for a few % of your pay, whatever that may be, you are represented by a full time staff of negotiators/legal reps who have no affiliation with employers and only work for the trade union. This union would have a full time rep for GA and a different rep for airlines, air ag or whatever. He/she is not a pilot but an expert in negotiation and employment law. A seperate section would have pilot reps, voted by a majority of members, who's job it is to represent the professional views of the members from that section of industry...Instructors would vote for their reps, regional pilots for their reps and 'mainline' pilots for their reps. These reps might have to be part time as the preference would be for current or recently retired pilots who have an outstanding record and are respected by their peers.

It would have to have some teeth too...if a member tries to short circuit the system by working for below award wages or back stabs fellow members to get ahead he is sanctioned somehow.

Sounds like the AFAP in it's glory days of the 60s and 70s...probably can't happen until the last bastion of group selfishness is broken down...the AIPA...when they realise their own futures are at risk without a united voice from every pilot down to a C210 VFR charter driver in Darwin then things will improve.

But the AFAP of the 60s and 70s was a product of the draconian employment conditions of pilots in the 40s and 50s.

It will be interested to see how QF mainline pilots vote in future at their AIPA elections...perhaps they can vote for an amendment to their constitution that says going from AIPA committee to management is not allowed under any circumstances.

Won't happen overnight but like most things in life cycles happen...does anyone think that the CX A scale just happened because of generous management?

It may also need a change of Govt and a review of employment law that re levels the playing field...brings back some social conscience....that's probably unlikely without great social upheaval...but that upheaval is where current 'management' and Govt policies are taking us.