Spellcheck, if the grounding of the Airline was not confrontational,
what is ??

You know... Nikki's posts have been quite reasonable.
So - Ok Stalin and others.
Here's a question for you then.
What would YOU do?
What is your strategy for rescuing QF mainline?
No abuse or vindictive statements... give me a reasoned strategy.
Joyce is gone... you are in the CEO's chair.
What fleet decisions would you make?
What would your competitive advantage be (that's not a business school buzz phrase by the way) and how would you keep it sustainable?
What would be your core markets - and where would you fly to?
What areas would you target for cost cutting?
Would you keep JQ?
What about heavy maintenance - onshore or offshore, and why?
What would you do about the QSA?
You should be able to provide answers to all these questions in around 150-200 words or so; the same length as one of these posts.
I'm intrigued to see what you have to say.

Jackneville

I stand corrected on that. Yes that was the ultimate in confrontational.
But I think you can see that he is trying to establish an alternative vehicle at a lower cost base. One which has cannibalised the mainline operation with gusto!
Its just that all this talk about Joyce and his inept, damaging style of management is missing the point of the outcome he wants to achieve.
Its just mind boggling how far he, and those in the know, are prepared to go to achieve it.

The grounding didn't confront the unions directly. It was a highly dangerous ploy to get the government to do the job for management. I say dangerous because it carried the risk of further trashing of the brand. Something that I feel happened to some extent & something that management don't seem to be too concerned about.

It also had the advantage that a direction to return to work would be pretty much binding & would kill off any further industrial action.

Tartare

First thing I would do is re negotiate wages and conditions. Lower wages to match competitors but institute Bonus payment for employees based on company performance and share offers in lieu of salary difference.
Remuneration tied to company performance. Extrinsic motivational tools to see company succeed, based on a proprietary sense of attachment which comes from ownership.
Thats for starters,
got to go !!

More please guys...

I wrote this in a message to someone who asked me the same question a while ago. I could keep going, but I think it spells out the basics. I wish to point out that the situation was a LOT better when I wrote this, but the writing was clearly on the wall. Jetstar had maybe 'only' gobbled up $500m at that stage:) or :(:(:(:ugh::ugh:


Here is a start. Firstly sack the LOT above dept head level. Either they are incompetent of they should have resigned. If they haven't resigned then they agree, if they agree they deserve to be hung on a lamppost outside QCA.

Engineers and pilots should be involved in route and aircraft selection far more than they have been - witness DFW.

Cabin crew must be involved in cabin interior and service to a very high degree.

Though I know little about it same with ground staff.

A 'good' CEO is needed urgently. If it were me I would treat the place like Churchill did in 1939 - set up a war cabinet with direct contact to all the people who would count. People with experience in their areas. None of this business KPI bull**** - people who actually know what they are doing from experience.

Getting to that point, the union heads must be closely involved - we all know if this doesn't succeed its game over. Its a big call but if it were me and I was a union head who had confidence in a CEO I would say something like 'our members will take a 5-10% pay cut for 24-48 months - PROVIDED we agree with operational decisions'. This is War Cabinet stuff really - Churchill eliminated the opposition parties - in WWII it was one cabinet equally chosen and when everyone pulls together (Borghetti againhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif it works. They need to realise staff are NOT the enemy.

Every route needs to be treated as a precious resource - like a struggling small business where every single point counts. I would get a group of 'travellers' randomly selected from ex or very senior cabin crew/ground staff and send them on every sector over 3-6 months - maybe even a few times and a couple of different airlines. Their reports would form the basis of immediate streamlining and reform. Nothing about 'getting' people, just about 'what aren't we doing right compared to everyone else' and 'how can we improve the customer experience' - but from people with proven operational experience, not the idiots that have managed it for the last 15 or so years.

All staff need to be given responsibility to make decisions and not be afraid of retribution (within reason) if something goes wrong. It is better to have 100 happy customers and one accidental screw up than 100 pissed of customers that could have been placated with a bottle of wine leaving the aircraft.

The ALAEA knows exactly what condition the a/c are in and how things should be done, without being crazy with this Aussie OH&S bull****, the same goes for every coal face dept. Get a 'sensible' union rep and senior engineer to 'sensibly' look at all these engineering bases and decide what was sensible and what was plain and simple bloody mindedness. I don't know enough about engineering to be in a position to comment really, but if it is anything like the rest of the company, stupid decisions would have been forced upon them and anyone sensible would have known immediately they were bad. That garbage HAS to stop. Engineers are the backbone of this company - no point having an iPad if #2 lets go on takeoff.

My opinion is Jet* is a union busting joke. In fact not union busting, but experience busting. Nothing but an exercise to put wally 23yo MBA's in positions of power so the even younger staff are not in a position to question anything. Clearly a basis for great airline operations. Absolutely insane.

Qantas is Qantas. Rebrand it as such, split the cabin service up on each a/c if you have to, but the goal of every LCC is to work out how to charge more for a product, Qantas could already do that. Space available even offer an upgrade service at check in? The mis matching of service (putting Qf pax on Jet* and vice versa) is just ******* stupid! WHY? The only reason could be so GD LC and now AJ etc can split something off when they want some pocket money....

Collective intelligence is always going to trump a decision made by a coterie of greasy pole climbing yes men. The last govt was a disaster because of way over centralised control. Hawke/Keating worked because of 'full and frank' meetings which nutted out good policy solutions and implementation BEFORE they were launched on an unsuspecting public and legal system. You MUST have counter arguments to achieve a sound result - In Qantas it has been 'this is what we decided and this is what you will do' - in some cases by paid consultants who know even less than the people throwing money at them! Ultimate Group Think MADNESS by people who don't (and will never) even know what a cockpit, engine cowling or galley even looks like!

Having someone like Olivia Wirth clearly having impact on an major company's policy is just outrageous - especially in something as technical as an airline. What I have learnt is pretty basic and pretty easy to implement but big business has 'lost' basic skills - make people happy...

Most (if not all) big business has forgotten their reason for being there, the customers...:(

I agree with you V-Jet that JQ is a union busting move.
Absolutely - but rather than a joke - I think it's deadly serious.
Pilots and Engineers in route planning? Sure, no disrespect, but the fundamental decisions there are payload/range and discretionary income of the target market, plus desire for inbound travel on their part, yield and competition pricing strategy.
And engineering?
Onshore or offshore, Brisbane, or HAECO - or somewhere else similar, AMECO or even Mr Nasty-stein's old mates at KLM? (your answer to this one really intrigues me).
What about fleet rationalisation?

• Squeeze Virgin from both ends of the market.

• Stop a new entrant coming into the market.

• Break the unions in Qantas

The experiment has failed miserably Alan. Suggest you change course rapidly or this once great ship is doomed.

AJ & the Board!
 

Can anyone explain why with all the stuff in the media, why hasn't there been a statement from major shareholders, the board, AJ or LC? Is there something going on we don't know about or are they pinning their hopes on the government making a decision for them? :sad:

Except when they buy the wrong configuration, put aircraft on routes the type isn't capable of supporting, wrong engines, wrong certification - all done at various times in the last 15 years. Or even better, lease new aircraft to park them! Expensive and very stupid rookie mistakes that are totally unnecessary!

Good to see Alan's teamed up with the best team. Something about bmw's I think he said.
Emirates Airline rules out financial lifeline for Qantas | The National
Alan Joyce: alliance with Etihad vs Emirates like "offered bike before BMW" - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

V-Jet,
Easy too look back at the past and thrown stones,
but remember that aircraft have substantial lead times and market conditions (eg. appropriate config for A380s due to GFC and the like) and delivery times (eg. 787s) or competitor activity (eg. startup of Scoot/AirAsiaX) can quickly change the right answer under long term plans.

Agree the large number of A320s is a potential issue if the Jetstars stop growing but I wouldn't know how easy it is to transfer them between divisions, and in the overall scheme of things (ie the $300m loss) at a rumored 20k/mth its not a massive number even if they sit there for 12 months.

Particularly when you have things like QFF deciding to stop spending $40m on an IT system, that it has already spent over $20m on.

My first step would be to create a vision and share it with the entire workforce and shareholders. QF hasn't enunciated a vision at this stage and this has dis-engaged staff and mystified investors. All other decisions would flow from the vision and can be tied back to the vision so everyone understands how the pieces are coming together.

I would keep JQ but clearly separate it product wise from QF. For example, no booking of JQ flights from QF website. I am less sure about the Asian Jetstars and would probably look to sell them off licensing the name if necessary. I am unsure on JQ long-haul. Until we know if this is profitable, it is hard to make any plans.

Cost cutting would have to occur across the business but once again it would be in line with the vision. For example, JQ may commence to provide aircraft and staff for domestic but the A320s (probably surplus if the Asian business is gone) would be in Qantas livery with Qantas product similar to JetConnect etc. Maintenance would be subject to a cost analysis. If the in-house tender was competitive, it could stay but if it is much more expensive, the obvious decision would have to be taken.

Route structure would be clearly defined in the vision. If int'l is to be retained, it would be ramped up with services to LHR via Asian ports resumed using currently leased slots. Likewise US services would be continued with A380/789 taking over depending on demand. I would also look at resuming AKL-LAX using 789s. I don't understand why the monopoly position was gifted to NZ on this route. Asia would also be a focus with QF services into the hubs of chosen partners such as China Southern, Jet in India etc. QF would also resume services from ports such as PER and ADL to HKG/SIN etc.

Fleet is a difficult and long-term option and would depend on existing commitments and financing but I would look to achieve the following:
Reduce fleet types by timing retirement of 747s within 4 years, ordering 789s and 78Js as new medium sized int'l fleet operating alongside A380s. In short-haul I would retain 738s & A330s though may look to already ordered A320 NEOs operating on reduced cost base to begin replacing them from 2020ish.

Unlocking shareholder value is also a key for any new CEO and this would be a key part of the vision. This may mean partly selling down FF or JQ. QSA would need to be removed so external investment can be attracted from key partners.

As you can see, some of my ideas probably aren't that far away from the current management but they would be tied to a clear vision rather than the current situation.

I'd love Qantas LAME wages to match those at Virgin. Virgin pay more.


....and as for those calling on changes to the Qantas Sale Act, what are you thinking? Qantas is currently 38% foreign owned and the cap is at 49%. Qantas are so poorly managed that no foreigner wants to invest in it.


The only way a change to the Act would become attractive is if the 49% is increased so foreign entities (most likely an airline) could take complete control. Then they could ditch Qantas flights that compete with their routes (say CZ), strip the assets out of the company, place fuel and other bills on the Qantas tab and generally turn it into another Ansett.


The current Qantas Board are so inept though, they are already allowing EK to rape and pillage as they please. ie Qantas flights that compete with EK dropped from Per, Adl and Fra.

Nikki & co:

By all means, get wound up about QF pilot salaries. The $200/$300/$400 000 salaries you mention do sound like a lot (though they're likely inclusive of super and allowances), and I'm sure there are those who see that sort of cash. Thing is, though, it's just not representative of the average. (I know others have already tried to make this point, but I might as well waste my breath and make it again.) I'm a long haul FO with over 25 years of flying and 12+ years in QF, and from memory my last group certificate said something like $166k. Enough for me, but some way short of your 300. As for $400k, I will never ever see it, nor do I expect to.

Next point: someone over on Qrewroom asked what would be the effect of all QF LH pilots taking a 20% pay cut, and came up an annual saving of $56 million. A healthy-looking number, which I'm sure Alan would be grateful to receive. But to put it in context, that $56 million is:

A bit less than what's just been tipped into Jetstar Japan;

About 70% of the freight cartel fines;

About half what Dixon was personally able to extract for himself during his tenure (and also about what he'd have received for selling the company down the gurgler had the APA bid got up);

A bit over a quarter of the cost incurred by Joyce's shutdown (and that doesn't include the long-term/ permanent damage to the brand);

A very small proportion (10%?) of the increased borrowing costs due to the credit downgrade; and

A very very small proportion (5%?) of the amount that's been spent so far on the various Asian Jetstar franchises without any discernible return whatsoever.

So by all means, keep harping on pilots' pay. It'll make Alan, Leigh and Olivia happy, but you'll be missing the point.

Be careful what you wish for Steve, getting a 20% pay rise is nice, but if 45% of people have to leave then is that really a win?

Yes for QF, wages bill goes up by a nominal 20% to 120% but then the work gets done by 55% of the staff so it then reduces to 66% of the original total.

The argument should never be about actual wages, they are largely irrelevant.

The argument needs to be about the services those wages deliver and, rightly or wrongly, currently QF think they are on the low end of the scale for the return.

Your view may, and presumably does, differ.

If we handled our 'job' as badly as BGA, we'd probably be locked up for life

Not bad 1A, and as you say v. close to what they're doing now.
Don't know about BL, GK and JM being failures though; I think it's too soon to call.