PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   MERGED: Alan's still not happy...... (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/528014-merged-alans-still-not-happy.html)

SOPS 28th Nov 2013 12:22

I wonder how different things would be if all the money that has been spent on stupid overseas Jetstar ventures had been spent at home on mainline?

And if the original promise had been kept that Jetstar would never compete on Qantas routes?

Oh, and if Qantas had ordered 777s and given mainline some 787s, instead of flying $100 bogans around in them?

Jetsbest 28th Nov 2013 12:50

Vorsicht...
 
Monopolies? Really? I think you're being a bit harsh with your selective recall.

The domestic business-class monopoly arose from the Ansett collapse when no other airline provided such a service...until Virgin decided to compete in that space.

And as for a "Pacific monopoly", you must have forgotten that United & Air Canada pretty much always did it, and Air NZ was allowed to. That excludes the many other one-stop options like Cathay, JAL, Air Pacific, Hawaiian, Air Tahiti, Air NZ, LAN Chile, Aerolinas Argentina etc. let alone the defunct operators like Pan Am.

The Pacific route was no doubt profitable, but a monopoly? Puhlease!

Cost Index 28th Nov 2013 13:05


I don't believe nationalised airlines with soveriegn wealth funds and favourable taxation and accounting standards qualify as free markets. The idea of free markets is that the government stays out of them!
Getting slightly OT but to answer this, favourable taxation and accounting standards ARE what help define free markets. The same rules apply equally to all businesses operating from Singapore. Despite nothing but an island it's a thriving country based on these principles, unlike our rent-seeking welfare nation. Governments DO play a role in free markets, ideally they merely set the rules and stand back.

Saying Singapore Airlines is a nationalised airline is a bit disingenuous. For ease refer to Singapore Airlines - Wikipedia.

The airline is a subsidiary of Singapore government investment and holding company Temasek Holdings which holds 54.5% of voting stock.
It has consistently shown via independent audits that it doesn't

receive() state funding, subsidies or preferential treatment from the government,..
Agree with the rest of your sentiments. Cheers.

halas 28th Nov 2013 13:42

@ CI; It doesn't have to receive any funding at all if it makes money.
Wikipedia for a reference is not the best avenue, but when it indicates that over half the shares are owned by Temasek which is the driver for the sovereign wealth fund, then guess who is calling the shots?
And if it under-performs then guess who is coming in to turn that around?
Are non-Sing citizens/residents allowed to own SQ shares? Just asking. :confused:

Far cry from what we see at QF at the moment.

Vorsicht has it right.

IF however the gum'int choose to nationalise, they will do it by the same way they payout bonds. Print more money. That way all Australians get to pay for it.

halas

Berealgetreal 28th Nov 2013 14:00

How did QF end up in this position?

Lines in the sand.
Jetstar franchises opened and closed like a change of underpants.
Grounding the Airline.
Randomly opening and closing routes all over the shop.
Fines.

Books have been written on the matter. Suggest getting reading glasses out Hockey stick. I don't want a cent of my tax money spent on this venture.

Would a level playing field mean splitting the government contracts 50/50 with Virgin? Or would it just go to the lowest bidder?

"We need action NOW", says Joyce. What sort of show is this guy running? Seriously, one minute its the unions, next its John Borghetti to blame for the FLAG CARRIER'S problems. Who will he blame next? Lol.

"Al" just doesn't know what to do next to compete with JB. Interesting results in the ALAEA survey! Lol!

SOPS 28th Nov 2013 14:28

If JB had not been passed over for the top job, I don't think Qantas would be in this mess in the first place. You have a guy with 30 years plus of Qantas experience, with knowledge, literally, from the ground up, displaced for some import with virtually no knowledge of Qantas or the Qantas way of thinking.

The only thing Joyce knew, was Jetstar and cut cut cut. JB knew how Qantas worked, and took that knowledge elsewhere to use it against them..

It was bound to end in tears, the end had started as soon as it had begun...

The final acts are about to be played out, the only sad thing is that those that led this sad demise will depart with millions.

Stalins ugly Brother 28th Nov 2013 14:39


"Al" just doesn't know what to do next to compete with JB.
"Al" just doesn't know what to do next fullstop. And that is the crux of the problem. :ugh:

So, hopefully the big boys in Canberra can help little "Al" out to save him from the competitors, the unions, the taxman, the pilots/engineers/cabin crew/ground staff/shareholders/customers, the monkey man, men with white jackets and pesky bottle openers in the Chairmans lounge.

But most importantly save "al" from "al"!

It also hasn't gone unnoticed how quiet the Chairman has been over the last month or so. :rolleyes:

I think QF needs a certain scope of government protection similar or equal to other sovereign state assisted international airlines but I want that price to be that this management and it's boards heads are put on a platter so the staff can feast.

Interesting weeks ahead. :hmm:

empire4 28th Nov 2013 14:48

It really breaks my heart that the airline I aspired to work for and eventually did is finished. Alan Joyce and his board of clowns have destroyed the place. Now only to blame a government policy because Borgetti and Virgin are kicking his ass.

At the same time I don't think government should have a say on who owns what of the company. Really, would you want them telling you what car you have to buy? If they really need it to be Australian owned then they should own 51%.

International Trader 28th Nov 2013 14:50

93 years of iconic history?

Come off it or more correctly, get your hand off it.

QF has existed by operating under a sheltered work shop system for many,many decades. They always insured that "I'm all right ,Jack cause I work for the Guvment". Government protection made poor management no hindrance and let us not forget that Qantas did play its part in the Dispute and in the demise of Ansett . If VA were in a difficult position, QF would again plunge the sword in, without hesitation.

What does QF actually do for Australia that necessitates it to be saved by the government? Does it fly locally made aircraft, maintain aircraft locally and exclusively use Australian fuel? Nope.
Yes it employs people but, so would whatever company replaces it.

If it makes a profit remember a good deal goes offshore now.
It does however ask Australians to fly in generally old and poorly maintained aircraft, put up with second rate service and cr.p food. You are also requested to pay top prices for that.
I say that the Australian public have been saving QF, via their hip pocket, for many years.

Unfortunately for QF, the vultures are circling and people start talking about iconic history and "national Carrier" or "national pride".
Tough, the time has come!

Saw this coming when they first started Jet*

Berealgetreal 28th Nov 2013 18:09

Spot on SOPS, JB not getting the QF job was the best thing that ever happened to Virgin.

Word is the man works 6.5 days a week and hasn't had a day off since he joined just under 4 years ago. He's up at 3am writing back directly to employees.

empire4 28th Nov 2013 18:35

Well Said IT. word perfect.

73to91 28th Nov 2013 21:14

Let's not forget Dixon, Singleton and Carnegie who are most likely watching with great interest.

3 guys who would be happy to buy in (again) and provide the people who want Australia own, 3 Australians as major investors. Make that 4, Packer would love to have more flights from Asia into Australia for a visit to Crown Casino's.

2 years ago this week - Dixon was reported as saying:

we decided to let it go at this stage


FORMER Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon has revealed he and adman John Singleton were among a group of wealthy investors who worked on taking a strategic stake in the airline three months ago, but shelved their plans because of concerns about global instability.

For the first time publicly confirming rumours that have swirled for months, Mr Dixon said a group backed by himself, Mr Singleton and investment banker Mark Carnegie and advised by a global investment bank took a "serious look" at Qantas as its share price slumped to an all-time low.

"All we did was have a look at it," Mr Dixon told The Weekend Australian. "And we looked at it in a serious way. We had some very top people looking at it and had a lot of people interested. But there are a lot of reasons why we decided to let it go at this stage." The aviation business owned by Mr Dixon, Mr Singleton and Mr Carnegie - Global Aviation Asset Management - and a group of wealthy private investors was looking to seize a strategic stake in the airline as an investment opportunity.
- See more at: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Flying Trades Person 28th Nov 2013 21:51

Do not put D***n on a high pedestal he wanted Qantas gone and pocket millions for himself.

Potsie Weber 28th Nov 2013 22:25

Interesting comment by Truss:


Federal Transport Minister Warren Truss said Qantas could not expect the "government to bankroll their ambitions to have a greater market share . . . or for their desire to open new airlines in other parts of the world".

Read more: Qantas wants federal debt guarantee

Transition Layer 28th Nov 2013 22:27


Originally Posted by empire4 (Post 8177626)
Now only to blame a government policy because Borgetti and Virgin are kicking his ass.

I despise Joyce as much as the next bloke, but I've got to ask - by what measure is his ass getting kicked? Profits? On time performance? Load factors? Yields?

Both airlines are predicted to make a loss this year. Qantas is hurting and so are Virgin but they now have deep pockets to withstand those losses for longer.

It's pretty simple...if QF had anyone else in charge we wouldn't be having this discussion. :rolleyes:

The The 28th Nov 2013 22:36

It's alright, apparently the Sales Act has a hidden clause for airspace priority.

You Qantas blokes are dumb as; accepting holding into Brisbane when you could use your priority status. No wonder the company is going bust!


Current laws require there be a majority Australian shareholding in Qantas as part of a deal which gives the national carrier privileges including air space priority.
read more

ohallen 28th Nov 2013 22:40

Seems that finally it has been admitted what many have been suggesting here for a very long time...he is unable to actually run the airline. So what do the Board do now save for change their nappies given the state of the company??

This is not a case of being unable to operate in an unfair environment but a consequence of decisions made over many years and a totally inept Board who must surely be waiting for some sort of enquiry as to why their own MD has called for help. For their sake I hope they do not report a large financial loss or the questions will just keep coming, particularly as some have already pointed out the statements made in the past.

JB must be really enjoying this being 10-0 down and now having the upper hand because of his skill in steering the team forward.

hotnhigh 28th Nov 2013 23:12

Yeah but if you talk to one of the 38 chief pilots Alan's created, the net promoter score and on time performance has never been better.
Happy days!

ALAEA Fed Sec 29th Nov 2013 00:27

Alan Joyce has sent Qantas broke. I can't work out why he hasn't resigned yet.

Vorsicht 29th Nov 2013 00:37

Putting aside the folly that is J* Asia, simply put Joyce abjectly failed to identify the changing business conditions and emerging threat of Virgin under the stewardship of JB.

He alone is responsible for the over capacity in the market. It is a direct result of his inflexible 65% line in the sand.

Virgin was organically increasing market share by improving its product (ably assisted by Joyce and Clifford's industrial relations strategy)and as a result Joyce had to put 2 planes in the air for every one that Borghetti added, so he could claim to be maintaining his 65%, whether demand was there or not.

The reality of a duopoly that provides a similar product is that most likely the market share will fluctuate and eventually stabilise around the 50% level, as was the case in Oz prior to deregulation. If Joyce had been willing to accept that as being a reasonable outcome of having a genuine competitor back in the market ( rather than trying win a war of attrition) and adjusted capacity accordingly, yields would have held up and he would not find himself in the position he is now in. Blindly assuming that because he was the 800lb gorilla he could dictate to the market what his share should be shows the type of hubris that has ruined many a good company.

I don't want to see Qantas fail, but any rescue package has to come with Joyce and Clifford resignation attached.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:08.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.