There has been a trend for at least the last five years in the U.S. (which means Australia is just about to catch up) of Boards requiring regular annual capability audits of Divisions and Departments where Managers are entitled to performance bonuses.

This is to prevent Managers from gutting their Departments to produce a short term spike in profitablity, grabbing a bonus, and running for the hills before the damage they inflicted becomes apparent.

I'm not sure how long QF has been managed in this style, but my guess is that it will take as least as long again to reverse the damage and put back some form of buzz.

Thanks for the Disney quote QFinsider, I hadn't heard that one before, and I agree totally with the sentiment.

One cabin attendant with a bad attitude can have more immediate and permanent affect on QF's reputation and profitability than anyone at Board level.

Senior Managers should be looking at least three to five years ahead. However they often stop doing that when annual performance bonusses are available. I guess if I was on a five year contract it would be tempting to plan to maximise my bonuses rather than the value of the company.

It's not rocket science.

My old boss, Merv McMillan, had a basic premis which still worked for me up until I "retired"....

Look after the staff and the staff will look after the job. It would be so easy to get the buzz back!

Hey Sunfish
 

I tried to send you a PM but your mailbox is full. Can you PM me please with another e-mail address.

DIVOSH!

As a flip side, my parents recently flew (full fare) to and from the US with QF. They showed me the letter they have written to the cabin crew management complimenting the crew on the excellent service they recieved. They were absolutely wrapped with QF and as a contrast, were repulsed at what passes for 'service' on US carriers. No wonder the LCCs are making a killing across there.

(Note that I do work for QF but the letter was legit!) Whilst I acknowledge that the lack of 'buzz' exists, some still manage to give great service- not withstanding the significant obstacles put in front of them by other parts of the company! :ok:

DiVosh, mailbox now cleaned out, PM's working.

cheers

DiVosh, was my description of her behaviour reasonably correct?

With the greatest of apologies to Captain.Q
 

Sorry to divert this thread (again). :O

It appears that I was one of the Joggers that Sunfish mentioned earlier in this thread.

I'll continue this with Sunfish via PM, but YES. She was totally self-absorbed. My mate and I initially thought that she'd had something far worse happen to her (bashed, r@ped, or seen a mangled human in the car in the distance).

We were surprised to find out she was in that state because her partners dog was stuck under a car. Also a bit concerned that she was so useless when there were things she could be actively doing to help the dog (like getting the car jack - eventually supplied by either the police or from the Commodore).

Anyway, back to the thread...

"Partner" is stretching it a little bit.

Divosh, Gucci, PM's?

Back to the htread.