Sorry Offchocks. I don't know much about the taxation rules and how they apply to redundancy payments. I did get VR from Qantas 7 years ago myself but didn't take much notice of it.


Finding the wind stuff interesting. Do you Pilots still go down to load control before a flight and get the weather charts? Do they give you an average wind estimation for the flight?

Whilst the operational workers are sliced and diced a quick look at the jobs available site reveals more managers are required - what a bloody disgrace. :ugh::ugh: :yuk::yuk:

I kid you not - the below are 'advertised' internally and/or externally

Principle Commercial Analyst
Manager Service Delivery
Manager Product Development (used to have great product before it was all wound up and given to EK and Crapstar)
Manager, Direct Digital Sales (oh please)
Manager, Service Quality
Manager, Resource and Operations (not many resources left, or operations)
Product Manager, Mobile Applications & Tablet (is there an IT dept? or were they made redundant previously?)
Manager, UX & Design (WTF??)
Manager, Digital Production
Manager, Commercial Opportunities (not much to manage when you don't fly anywhere to create 'opportunities)
Manager, Customer Targeting (customers used to come to QF)
Manager, Performance & Customer Insights (could this be done by the body above if required at all)
Manager, Direct Strategy & Portfolio (ergo there must be a Manager for 'indirect strategy')
Manager, Customer Strategy (refer above)
Corporate Operations Officer (this may be what's known as a secretary)
Manager, Non Flight Revenue (my personal favourite - is there a Finance dept?)


This was only after about 2 pages in (there were 5 pages total & not a coalface job to be seen)
I'm absolutely not joking (I wish I was), as at this rate I can't see a reduction in staff total. Of course LGA will be correct - there will be a "reduction" of 5,000 jobs (pilots, engineers, hosties) but these will be balanced by employing an extra 5,000 managers and consultants.

The gravy train rolls on - laying track on sleepers created by bodies of pilots, engineers, ramp and terminal staff, cabin crew etc.
Don't forget all these Manager roles come with endless first/business class travel, Q club membership, car leases, i-phones, laptops, lunches at Stonepool and on and on it goes. I wonder what the good Senator would think?? No wonder the Mad Monk Tony said a big fat NO to a loan, as this crap above is the kind of stuff it would've been spent on.

The wreck is coming kids - NO aircraft left, NO 787's or A350's coming means no revenue and the pigs with their snouts in the trough are fast swilling the last of the cash reserves. Oh the humanity.

I wish this wasn't true.

:yuk::yuk:
.

Hang on...I thought the plan to save Qantas was to get rid of 5000 people? And as the airline shrinks, what are all these managers actually meant to manage? It all leaves me speechless.

Pilots - Reduction in Numbers..........RIN
Aircraft - Reduction in Numbers..........RIN

It's really very simple maths advertising those vacancies. Those positions would allow a company to manage the desperate undersupply of managers to manage the oversupply of pilots due to the undersupply of aircraft. Put simply a management EIN is what's needed.

Expansion in Numbers
:ugh:

Fedsec said :
It's all pushed electronically to our iPads nowadays. The weather package includes wind charts/satellite images etc. Generally there is also an 'overall wind component, figure on the flight plan.

You'll likely find that those advertised roles are actually consolidating several into one, rather than extra positions. That's how reductions in manager numbers get achieved...

i.e. 1 new position to replace 4 old ones. They get advertised so there is an element of process for who stays and who goes.

Or they are hiring more people so they can find 5000 employees to sack!

If you join two departments on order to reduce personnel numbers then you need a new layer of coordinating management to oversee the new department. This enables you to reduce the numbers of lower level staff while increasing the number of managers.

Parkinson's Law comes to mind in the case of QF. Bureaucracies expand over time, the British Colonial Office had it's greatest number of staff at the time it had the least number of colonies to administer. Therefore QF should have its largest number of managers and administrators at the time it has the lowest number of aircraft and routes.

Five years ago, each Engineering tarmac department had one manager.


Around that time they appointed an additional one to each department as his backup called an Ops manager.


Earlier this year they decided that the main manager need more Ops managers. They increased the number to four.


Along with the Ops managers, they also decided to create a new manager of airworthiness in each section.


What was a department with one manager overseeing about 150 staff (with foreman and senior Engineers) five years ago is now six managers overseeing a reduced staffing compliment (maybe 100 per section).


The increase in managers alone is 500%. Qantas were making money five years ago and now they are not. Anyone think there may be a connection?

Look on the bright side
 

At least the time interval for oil replenishment shouldn't be mismanaged:}

Many if the new managers are duds and I mean real incompetent fools. One of the new appointees at a recent meeting had to ask what "AOG" stood for and saw a list with aircraft regos and didn't know what they were. Yep, the oils are now in good hands.

Ps. The above examples are no exageration

Food for thought - Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking - today.

Is an ideological agenda destroying the future of Boeing

Have to agree with Ngineer - way too many managers to start with and yet we still need more managers.

Love to know the salaries for all those people they are employing - probably enough to cover 3 or 4 other workers.

With ref to Mr Sandilands article...

I remember a few years back (not that long ago) coming to work on a dark and early morning to find our cleaner buddies locked out of the main gate. On entering the tarmac at security, I was greeted by some HR staff who were checking all workers to ensure no cleaners entered Sydney airport. I was oblivious as to what was going on at the time.

What I saw on the tarmac was a lot more disturbing. Men in smart casual attire, nice & expensive 4wd's, they were high fiving each other on the tarmac whilst organizing teams of workers who were there to take the place of the employees locked out.

I mention this because it was obvious to me at the time that this was no longer a matter of business. Things had become very personal, and emotionally toxic. A deep resentment seemed to have set in between these people managing the lock-out and the employees.

The article I read reminded me of this.

It's not so much their salary that concerns me, I think the salary will be the norm for that similar position at other organisations. It will be the perks like staff travel high priority tickets and higher uplift category tickets to first class that long time suffering Staff/crew with now lower uplift categories can rarely access most times of the year due to these individuals. :ugh:

It will be just another opportunity to water down staff conditions and benefits to line the pockets of managers and fat cats with their heads in the pigs trough... :*

Don't know if this has been considered in the last 210 pages, and not withstanding any of the other issues raised, what effect has fleet diversification had on Qantas' cash problems? I vividly recall, and a google search confirms, that many aviation commentators at the time attributed at least some of Ansett's demise to their highly diverse fleet - namely a combination of Boeing and Airbus products. At one time, Qantas was a 747 operator only. Now, they have a fleet as diversified as Ansett did. I know people will make the comment that other airlines have diverse fleets and don't have the same problems as Qantas, but Australia has a small population base to draw skilled and qualified workers to maintain and operate aircraft. When you have to employee Airbus and Boeing certified LAMEs and pilots, surely it just makes it harder and more costly.

Another angle to the 'excess number of engineering managers' story?
 

Managers are often on contracts with 'renewal periods', KPIs and dismissal clauses etc.

Such contracted positions have been used in other industries (eg mining) to get 'unionists' onto 'better' terms & conditions for several reasons;
1. in the short term the conditions may actually be better,
2. it erodes union influence,
3. if people accepting the contract are good at what's asked of them they can be promoted up the organisation, and
4. if they're not great (or really were always surplus-to-requirements) they can be KPI-failed out of the organisation in just a couple of years anyway.

Evidently, it's much easier than explaining the problem, making a case for change, and then using leadership to bring 'the people' with you. :ugh:

Yep, they stick together, it's the way they are bred these days, an epidemic. All you got to do is pick the Uni, find a suit and learn the jargon, no hands on experience required.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-3...fb-profile.jpg

and then they are all very happy together.

Alan's Happy Again - YouTube
. :)

It's not their fault, it's what the teach them at management school nowadays which is to break a problem down into smaller parts and delegate more managers to it. That's also how they improve their individual KPIs.

Of course, if there was someone in there that actually knew how to run an airline then the problems wouldn't seem to be all that difficult to manage.

Senior pilots 'holding out' for 2 years VR are deluding themselves.

Firstly, any RIN from the 744 will likely create a maximum of about five subsequent training pathways.... Perhaps less depending on who goes where in subsequent fleets. If we allow $50K a go, that's $250K. Add on the CR component for the S/O that is going to get the chop and you're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of $300K. I'll be generous and allow &350K. One year pay for a 744 driver is probably circa $300K. So financially, it's a line ball call as to whether Qantas is better off dealing with the training costs or offering any more than $350K. They're certainly not going to offer $600K which is roughly two years pay.

Of course, you could argue that Qantas should factor in the retraining costs that they will need to pay in a few years time when movement starts again (plus the training if the redundant S/O wants to come back or the new S/O) but since when has Qantas looked that far ahead when it comes to spending money.

Redunandancy and tax is a complex area and when you take redundancy is very important. Let's say someone takes a $350K package on 1 Jul. The way in understand it is the first $125K(ish) for someone with 25 years of service is tax free and is considered exempt. Monies beyond that are then an eligible termination payment and subject to the lessor of that cap or the whole of income cap. I think (and happy to be corrected) that the remainder of the payment is subject to concessional tax rates- $225K would result in paying tax of circa $100K. If they take the redundancy at the end of the FY then they're going to be nailed for 46.5 cents in the dollar for every cent beyond the $125K as they will have earned $300K+ and then taken the ETP as well but their 'whole of income' cap is going to nail them Certainly, the tax implications of getting two years pay are significant- calculate the tax on $475K. :eek:

So if they get $350K, they're going to clear about $250K- about what they'd clear in 16- 18 months of work. If they get $600K they're going to clear about $360K- about two years of work. Both those examples presume taking the payout on 1 Jul.

Here are a few other points worth making.

767 captains to be demoted will be lucky to have seniority for A380 F/O. The reason for this is that with a 744 RIN displacing all the LH PER A330 commands and 30ish in Sydney, that there could well be 30ish Sydney A330 captains looking for a place to go- A380 F/O is the obvious decision unless they go for a 737 slot. That will trigger a RIN on the A380 F/O ranks also although increased flying hours will absorb some of those numbers. Junior A330 Captains as well as junior A380 F/Os need to be eyes wide open as to the implications of this process on them.

The training department will struggle for capacity. In the next 12 months there are at least 150 767 pilot training pathways- the vast majority of those between now and the end of January next year. Then there are the (rumoured) 40 744 captains and F/Os resulting in another 80 training pathways. We'll potentially need an A380 F/O RIN as well as an A330 F/O RIN-adding potentially another 60 ish pathways.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for the time being. Not as clear as I'd like due to editing hassles on the iPad but you get my drift. :ok:

I don't know about Lala land. For me and others of my age it's a question of weighing up a VR package against future earnings. The 747 has somewhere around 4 to 5 years of service remaining . I will retire with the aircraft or if a VR offer is made that is more attractive than flying for another 4 to 5 years il leave. It doesn't bother me one way or the other. It all comes down to choice for both Qantas (training costs) and me (money).

'Qantas is in severe financial difficulty'
Posted by: 3AW Drive | 12 May, 2014 - 5:48 PM

Tom Elliott has been sent a leaked document that appears to show the perilous state of Qantas' financial affairs.

The "damaging" internal memo, titled "Liquidity Challenge", details how the airline might be forced to sell its frequent flyer program to pay for a black hole in its budget.

The document, dated Wednesday May 7, also discusses funding being rationed to the airline and suggests that its burden of debt is too great. It also reveals the company is "concerned" its credit rating will be downgraded further.

The memo questions whether Qantas management is at a "tipping point" and also appears to table the sale of its loyalty program.

"If this document is true - and I believe it to be true, it's only a few days old - Qantas is in severe financial difficulty," Tom Elliott said.

"The frequent flyer program is probably the one thing it has that is really worth a lot of money, that you could sell to someone else.

"I think there is a very strong likelihood that Qantas will sell its frequent flyer program.

"This document also talks about things like 'further credit downgrades'.

"And here's a really ominous sentence: the document talks about 'a jigsaw puzzle of issues' and then says 'When will management reach a tipping point?'

Speaking on 3AW Drive, Tom said his program has contacted Qantas to establish the veracity of the document.

In February, Qantas announced a six-month loss of $250 million and plans to shed 5000 jobs.

Qantas sent the following statement to 3AW Drive: "Qantas has been very upfront with the market and the community about the challenges it is facing.

"The suggestion that, effectively, 'It’s much worse than you think' is misleading and wrong.

"The concept of a 'liquidity challenge' seems to ignore the $2.4 billion Qantas has in the bank, not to mention a large number of unencumbered assets (ranging from airport terminals to aircraft). This has been noted by a number of analysts since February.

"We have an obligation to keep the market up to date with our position, and we did that as recently as last Thursday. This was widely reported.

"No decision has been made on Frequent Flyer, so any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong."

The words smoke and fire come to mind.

Might be something in it, VA's share price has had a bit of a surge over last couple?
Probably will help managements shock and awe campaign.

I'm sure in the last 12 months I read an article by a well credentialed person that said an airline the size of Qantas needed $2 billion in cash to fund day to day operations. Not having access now to credit card sales until the day of travel due to the ratings downgrade would further exasabate the cash flow problems as would today's load factors which I think were around 61% international and 64 % domestic.

This is absolutely not an attack on QF crew themselves, more management's inability to do anything constructive:

And there lies yet another argument for the 777. Can't change the past but the -300ER entered into service 10 years ago. QF could've had the majority of long haul crew on 767/330 rates, still could've kept the 380 as the so-called 'flagship'.

Not really my area but they also could've recruited FAs for the specific 777 fleet, like the cabin crew now on the 380 (as I understand it).

Finally (and I'm only using second hand information here - feel free to post actual figures), I've been told the 777-300ER uses ~20T less fuel on BNE-LAX than the 744 does. Figures are rough but that's 40T/day (return flight). Daily services so 280T/wk or 14,560T/yr. Converting kg/L (*1.266) gives $18,432,960/yr if QF managed to hedge fuel at $1/L, someone might know more though.

- - - - - - - -

Thanks McHale, so let's use that: 29,120T per year per east coast-LAX route. Daily flights from MEL/SYD/BNE (MEL used to be 744) so 87,360T/yr. That's $110.6M per year at $1/L. Disgusting hey..

ConfigFull,


Old mate up in Brisvegas tells me BNE-LAX flt averages 150T of fuel per flt and info from VA engineers and refuellers that the 777 BNE-LAX averages 110T of fuel per flt. So roughly a ballpark saving of 80T on a RETURN flt, therefore, you can DOUBLE your figures, which leads to a lot of $$$'s in fuel bill for JUST 1 FLT (QF15/16) IN THE QF NETWORK!!! Give me friggin strength!!!


McHale.:mad: :mad:

Angryrat,
Haven't heard those rumours but it makes sense, let's not forget that what is happening to the LH award is exactly what started 10 years ago to the LH flight attendants. 767 and 747 gone, all left on the LH award will be A380 and A330. Both are arguably a dying fleet already. Make no mistake no future aircraft will be introduced on a LH award, so it is by default a fading dream. Any bozos hoping for 2 year VR will keep waiting, ain't gonna happen. Stick hour awards are the norm and the future, that's the fact. I'm not condoning it but just stating the bleeding obvious....i

I am only a stupid pilot, however one thing seems clear to me. 2 billion dollars would look like a lot of money in my bank account, but I would think that an airline the size of Qantas could burn through 2 billion pretty quick. I stand to be corrected, however.

747 carries 25 extra business class seats over the 777-300.

Thats $87.5k extra revenue per flight. Daily return flights = up to $64m pa in extra revenue.

Using your Mel, Syd, Bris example would equal up to $192m per year in extra revenue.

Thats before even considering that the 747's have no remaining capital value whereas the 777 would cost as much as $300m each which needs to recouped. Lets keep it real simple, 6 777, 15 year life = $120m in capital costs per year that need to be recouped on a straight line basis ignoring the time value of money.

Considering it was 3.2 Billion not so long ago I'm sure it won't take AJ to long to burn through the other 2 Billion. :ugh:

How is it that when we had no Jetstar we were making a Billion a year yet now with this amazing business in our portfolio we are quickly going out the back door??

Go figure. :hmm:

Stalin,

I agree, through all the fog , the main point that the cash in bank is 2.4b compared to 3.2b about a year ago points to a crisis within the next year. You need a certain amount to keep the car on the road, and the tipping point is around 2b for a company like QF.

Qantas just issued $300m of bonds at 7.75%. Virgin announce sale and lease back of HQ.

The war continues! Looks like both sides continue in the need for a bit more cash!

It would be interesting to see who would buy bonds from a company that is rated as "junk" on an investment level.

With Aussie government bonds for the same period yielding about 3.7%, it's about the right premium for junk status. 4% above the swap rate gives premium over Government bonds so I think there would be interest in them.

It's not Ansett yet it kinda is if you look at potential outcomes.

In a way it's worse, we were gifted the cheesey '65%' when Ansett collapsed. So we grabbed a few BA 763's and a couple of AWAS 763's plus all the AA 738's they couldn't take after 9/11.

Seems like so many things have happened to make Qantas so strong and so set to expand and prosper.

Then the blame game started, then everything was too much to pay for, then staff became the problem and then and till now the bullying began.

What a criminal and corporate disgrace. This is ENRON stuff that will go down in history.

SHAME SHAME SHAME - Clifford, Board and Joyce.

Revenue's not the whole issue and depreciation's only part of the cost puzzle. How does the operating cost per ASK compare between the 747 and the 777 or even the A330 or A380 over the same sectors?

And it's only $300m... Any local super fund investment manager wouldn't even blink. It's practically a retail quantum.

All the focus has been on the loss of jobs since the announcement (and no changes at the top). I am surprised that the media hasn't attacked Joyce and the board - they should be attacking them harder. None of them have been accountable for thousands of people losing their jobs.

Camel Squadron,

Couldn't agree more - but the 744s were never going to fly forever! The complete lack of foresight has put QFI in this position. 25 less J seats would also raise the premium for those seats. Between the fuel, engineering and crew savings it's hard to ignore - the 777 is the same endorsement as the 787 for flight crew, could've saved a bunch there too - who paid for the 787 "introduction costs" in the last financial results...