Unfortunately there is pot of gold, but only for a very precious few.

I think the culpable mismanagement at Qantas is 'proving' it can't work.

Alan et al are totally incompetent, but in their little world are not. Reinforced by midget man being voted one of the best airline managers in the world (by his peers, no less) therefore it logically follows all their decisions are the best money can buy.

If they can't make Qantas work then no one can.

As much of Qantas that can be hived off will be, with a magnificent round of bonuses all round for the right people for jobs well done.

In my perfect world all staff would simply not turn up to work at all and stop them profiting massively from such gross incompetence. The Mercy Killing scenario.

The key to understanding this is that they have tried everything and nothing else has worked, as they are so good at thier jobs they know they are doing the right thing and any means justifies the end.

While Clifford, the board, Joice and senior management remain Qantas will spiral down as an airline and an investment. Aviation is a service industry, you can't have such a poor regard for your staff and expect to succeed.

They will continue with their snouts in the trough for a while yet, bribing politicians, media and others in positions of power, with chairman's club access, free upgrades, grange, ipads etc.

In the long run, they will fail. It will remain to be seen if those who are left, who care for the airline, will be able to save it.

Are they incompetent?

It must be a very difficult task to keep the share price as low as possible and at the same time keep institutional investors on side.

The question for us of the 80% will be when to sell once the end game becomes clear, maybe greed will bite us too.

Edit...

After reading Nassensteins Monster's post I will amend my 80% to 99.9%.

What was it AJ said? "An overwhelming vote for yes", if it wasn't so sad you might even laugh at it, honest mum 82.5% voted yes, now can I have my money. :ugh:

PIOT I believe there are those that will save it, I believe there more than enough QF staff who are prepared to put the company before themselves, to give 110% to get the company back on its feet, give them the right CEO and like TE and Virgin, they will shine, and QF will live on, as is its right, and will take up its rightful place in this nation, where it deserves to be.

Agree with TG, the executive at Qantas has to change. There is zero trust, and more importantly zero respect for upper management at the moment, and things will only get worse.

AJ, Clifford and the board need to realise that the employees don't see them or the institutional shareholders as their bosses. The people sitting in the terminal while the airline was grounded missing appointments, holidays, weddings and funerals are the bosses. They are the ones who ultimately provide us with our wages. They are what the airline is all about. To have treated the main focus of the airline like that was disgusting.

When management start treating the passengers with a little respect, maybe they will earn some from the employees.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edit: something went wrong with the post order, this should appear under Nassensteins Monster's.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Nassensteins Monster, nice analysis. However there is something else to consider. The "concentrated" owners aren't the real owners - they control the shares and the voting, but they are likely to be custodians for the true owners - the vast bulk of Australian workers with a Superannuation account. Ownership and control have been separated.

That's right, workers capital is taken from them by government decree (super guarantee levy) out of their paycheck, forced into a system of compulsory savings. The money is deposited into the institutions that you mention, who then vote on the real capital owners behalf, and in many cases against the direct interests of those workers.

To make it simple, workers are forced to save through super funds, once this happens they lose all control and voting rights of those saving, they bear the risks, but without any rights & privileges.

If I were cynical, I could argue its an ingenious scam to "conscript" the capital of the workers for use of those in power to further entrench that power.

Thanks, Mohican. That's what I thought. To add insult to injury, I believe the freeze period for those assigned a slot based on a reduction in numbers is two years? So, said senior Captains and F/Os will be stuck for awhile before they can do anything other than resign. Ughhhh


Somting wong. This should be after Mohican's post

Metroboy
 

There are about 133,400 QAN shareholders.

JP Morgan own almost 23%. Do some reading into JP Morgan. He single-handedly triggered the Great Depression. What would you expect from an organisation with this pedigree?
HSBC own 19%. Another bank. Say no more.
NAB own 18%. Ditto.
Citicorp are the next largest shareholder. Yet another bank. And a renowned ethical corporate citizen. Google "Citicorp fined" and you get 369,000 hits.
In the last couple of years we have seen what regard bankers have for the majority of investors. Scant little. We have seen what regard they have for the world at large. None whatsoever.
60% of QAN shares are owned by three banks.
There are 2.241 billion QAN shares.
Of those, 72% or 1.614 billion are considered closely held shares, meaning they are held for the long term rather than traded.
80% of QAN shares are owned by 20 shareholders.
82.5% of QAN shares are owned by 240 shareholders. That's 0.0018% of the total number of shareholders.
That means a little over 133,000 "Mum and Dad investors" - the 99.9982% - own the remaining 17.5% of shares.
I saw a few of them at the AGM. They were Not Happy Jan. Hardly representative I know.

Do I have intimate personal knowledge of whether the 99.9982% agree with what's going on at Qantas? No. But consider these two facts: firstly, the percentage of Australia's population owning shares is the highest in the world. Secondly, every survey I saw asking Australia's population whether they agreed with the direction and actions the board and management were taking at Qantas revealed a clear majority did not.

From that I draw the conclusion that the majority of shareholders - as opposed to the very small number of institutional shareholders owning the majority of the shares - are dissatisfied with the direction management and the board are taking the company.

If I put myself in the shoes of the institutional shareholder that bought in at anything from $3 to $6, I'd be distinctly unhappy with my shareholding falling in value by anything from 50% to 75% and not receiving a dividend for three years either. But I'm in it for the long haul. I've seen the sexy Powerpoint presentations painting a the future in a rosy hue and I've been shmoozed by the Board and CEO. I'm a little reassured about the future of the company.

But then the audit principle kicks in. I see failures of judgement here and there, a failed social media strategy, a failed "teaser" advertising campaign, a hapless spokesmodel, poor fleet, route and timing decisions, an utter failure to engage and lead the workforce in the direction I've been briefed is necessary for the survival of my investment. Does this represent judgement at the highest levels of the company? Uh oh!

But I can sleep ok at night, because I haven't invested my own money. It's someone else's and they bear all the risk. Night night, sleep tight!

And i am sure when it goes tits up the public will be shouting for a bailout.

After the dust, indeed.
What happens if the company publishes an FSO announcing a reduction in numbers of 747 Captains and F/Os and the only slots available for bidding are A330 S/Os? Is that possible in the award?

Tim.

And thats exactly how the redundancy payout scenario is going to playout.

I was having lunch the other day with a very senior -400 Captain who offered he was only 'hanging around for the payout now'.

When I explained to him that what the company could do (I believe) is declare a surplus in Capt and F/O ranks on all fleets prior to the A380 / B744 crew base being moved to Singapore, this would result in the vast amount of those crew members momentarily becoming S/O's just prior to CR.

This means the CR payment, even if its the same as the FEO's (104 weeks max) would be at A330 S/O rates.

It sounds crazy, but companies like Bain & Co specialise in this sort of corporate bastardry, and the letter of the award would allow this type of movement.

Regardless, there is no way in hell the company will be paying out 104 weeks to senior captains, particularly those over 60.

Tinee Tim,
No, I think not possible.

mohikan,
I do not think your doomsday scenario is possible after looking through the contract in the last few days.:)

I agree with you that the senior guys hanging out for redundancy are going to be disappointed, but can see why they are trying!:rolleyes:

Whilst the shareholders continue to run the business, who is listening to the employees and the customers? Certainly not management.....

Read the award, it is all there if you dig deeply enough.:rolleyes:

The ATO sunk the idea of a Mainline Red Tail base in SIN 7-8 years ago. Ain't going to happen.

I think that is why they are gunning for a separate entity registered in SIN for Red Q

NO, IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN...
but than again?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...P_Wheatley.jpg

Captains reduced in numbers are permitted to 'displace' pilots in a lower category if they are senior to them. Thus, you'll see 767 F/Os only demoted to S/O A380 as long as they are senior to those S/Os on the A380. This will occur even if that creates a surplus on the A380. Then we do a reduction in numbers on the A380 and those S/Os on the bottom of the pile go to whatever aircraft they are senior enough to get to.

Thus, you can see that demotion creates as many residual training slots as does promotion. It's also way the company really isn't that keen on demoting people as it's a HUGE training cost. They may (and I stress may) decide that it's cheaper to offer a senior 744 Captain a package- certainly won't be 104 weeks- to get him to go rather than face the prospect of multiple residual vacancies as that 744 Captain displaces an A330 Captain who displaces a 767 Captain who displaces an A380 F/O, etc, etc.

That's my reading of it anyway. Happy for one of the more experienced gurus to shed some light. Kremin? Going Boeing?

TineeTim,
From lowest category aircraft F/O to highest category aircraft S/O.:hmm:

Where else would you suggest?:rolleyes:

As Keg says, it could get interesting.:8

After the dust has settled there will be no

MH reviews operations to cut profit loss - Airline News - etravelblackboardasia.com

Coincidence?

After watching the Senate Inquiry last week. Especially the questions & evidence to the Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations. I got the impression the noose was tightening around the use of foreign based crews on operations both in & thru Australia.

Does that blow the Asia Push plans out of the water?

MC