Oh dear, another shutdown looming to save money. Was radical last time, hard to better that effort.:=

Perhaps he will be recruited by the England cricket team as the new coach to replace Mr Flower. His ideas might even reflect a win:ugh:

Angryrat - you had a crack at Nikki over this whole `pilots et al on the Board; thing, saying she didn't know much about what a Board does?
Errm, I think that'd be you me old four striped, aviator and David Clark wearing friend (or maybe you have one of those really cool telephony type headsets).
Boards govern.
They don't get involved in the operational nitty gritty.
That's the role of management.
So the proper place for your non-union pilot is on the management committee, with big Al and everyone else.
Check out Dave Morgan (or organ with an `M' as he describes himself) over the ditch.
The Exec committee develops the wonderful ideas along with their minions, and some poor pr!ck then writes the Board paper and the preso.
The Board signs off.
And if you think it should be different., then you don't know anything about Corporate Governance.
That's how it works - even at QF.

The federal court legend.......
 

The longer the silence is, the more left of field the announcement will be, I fear.

The following represents the reason for such silence. This hiccup wasn't in the script. This was where the top 100 were to all waltz into federal court crying into there hands, must have been the damn unions again. The judge in this ruled a deal is a deal......Damn right it is......

Toyota would not comment on the vote it wanted to put to workers, having issued a statement this week saying it was ''disappointed'' with the union, and that a vote against changing their workplace agreement could put an end to Toyota building cars in Australia.

Read more: Toyota waits on Federal Court ruling over union pay deal

And then it gets to court, and blow me down, if its not work choices by stealth, and it was coming to a work place near you......

A FEDERAL Court judge has blocked Toyota from seeking employees' votes on a new package which would cut entitlements, ruling the auto giant had breached the Fair Work Act.

:D:=

Waren9

You say that “the genius/idiot argument yet to be resolved” for you, but in the same post you explain alternatives that result in AJ winning either way.

I reckon it would take a really special kind of idiot to be able to maneuver himself into a multi-million dollar ‘win / win’ situation. Either that, or AJ has control of a bunch of even bigger idiots.

I do hope the ‘employee buy out’ plan comes to fruition. Management of the airline would then become the best entertainment around. :ok:

I'd keep your opinions in Salt Lake if I were you.

Tartare, as far as I'm aware a Board of Directors is supposed to overlook a company and what it does, how on earth could you possibly overlook a company in an industry that you've never worked in before?

An excerpt from the Constitution of Qantas Airways:
"The Directors are responsible for managing the business of Qantas and may exercise to the exclusion of the members in general meeting all the powers of Qantas which are not required by the Corporations Act, by the listing Rules or by this Constitution to be exercised by the members in general meeting"

The Business of Qantas is Aviation, who better to Manage the Business of Qantas then than those with real Operational Experience?

I think AngryRat is quite correct, why should we not have a few "Inside Directors" whom have knowledge of the Industry that has been gained after many years of actually working within it and whom holds other degrees/experience that is relevant to their duties as a Director? Is this not what an "Inside Director" is?

An excerpt from the Qantas Corporate Governance Webpage:
"The Board comprises a majority of independent Non-Executive Directors who, together with the Executive Directors, have extensive commercial experience and bring independence, accountability and judgement to the Board's deliberations to ensure maximum benefit to stakeholders including shareholders, customers, suppliers, employees, government regulators and members of the community where Qantas operates."

Infact looking at their Board of Directors it seems that there are only a few with actual Aviation experience:

Richard Goodmanson who was CEO of America West Airlines, an Airline which has apparently spent a reasonable number of years in Bankruptcy, was involved in the 1989 Strikes as they were part owned by Ansett, were involved in a couple of scandals resulting in large fines was apparently on the verge of being grounded back in 2000.

William Meany, who was Managing Director and Chief Commercial Officer of Swiss International Airlines, yet another Airline that spent a fair number of years Bankrupt but which has apparently managed to come good after being part bought out, it is unclear though whether he worked for them before or after they went bankrupt so we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and was with South African Airways who seem to do alright, maybe he'll do some good, he hasn't been there long!

Barbara Ward, who was CEO of Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services, a Leasing Company, no more, no less.

As you can see, only 3 people with previous Aviation Experience and they were in those positions with no previous experience, just appointed it would seem. So I ask you Tartare, why would you put a group of people with no actual coal face experience in Aviation be ultimately in charge? Because that is what the Board of Directors is, Ultimately in charge, if the group is taking the wrong path, wasting money, doing poorly, it should be their duty to identify why and force the Management to get it back on track.

Perhaps if this not the way it currently works then perhaps this is how it SHOULD work, why not introduce some kind of Supervisory Board? Why not have a group of actual Workers who understand the day to day running of the company and the challenges that face them with some sort of power so as to not have all the power centered around a group of "Non-executive" Directors?

This in my opinion is the problem with MBAs in general, something you alluded to in an earlier post. For the most part they seem to believe that an education in Business Administration means they are able to run a company with no real understanding of the Industry in which their Business operates and this is their folly. I'm only young but I've personally had to deal with 2 of these creatures and have nothing but contempt for them, they were fools who blinded the Owners with glossy polished bulls**t and effectively took already well run businesses and made them far more complicated and reliant on themselves to secure their position to no real gain for the business and an effective loss in the form of their salaries which should have gone to the people actually doing the job of keeping everything running smoothly despite their disruptive influences.

A question for you, why do companies not take those Employees who show exceptional skills and loyalty to the company and put them through an MBA with the intention of putting their experience within the company and industry to use along with their new skills gained through an MBA? I remember hearing this used to happen once upon a time, take someone with the Industry and Company Experience and then through an MBA course or some such give them the additional skills to become part of Management.

Now we simply have Career Politicians, Career Directors, Career Management, people who are there through no real skill or experience but simply through contacts and sheer luck and most riding on the back of well established companies and businesses that were formed and run by those that came up through the ranks. Mind you, this is not all management, just it would seem the vast majority.

Also, please ignore the confrontational nature of my entire post, I sort of got to the end and realised lack of sleep has added an angry edge but alas I CBF to retype it to sound less so and yes I realise a lot of what I've typed will probably be wrong and I await to be schooled in it, such is the way of life and no one should be above learning a new way of doing or viewing something.

Interesting post Ixixly well thought out and shows the real issues at QF.

In many industries this is the norm. Banking, Mining, Insurance, IT, Supermarkets, Engineering etc

Unfortunately the major problem in aviation is that generally speaking Pilots and Engineers don't really want to quit their line jobs to sit behind a desk. That unfortunately is a unique problem with aviation. As a result the standard of pilot managers is generally poor as the wrong people are promoted.

I would also imagine that for a line captain to quit his flying job and progress through the management ranks would result in a pay cut.

I was told once by a very successful businessman.....Companies have managers and managers have directors. Directors dictate to their managers what to do with the companys.

I guess the hint is in their name... "Directors"....

You all seem to assume I regard you with contempt because you sit in seats 0A and 0B.
I don't at all.
But I think you need to stop viewing the white shirt, tie wearers with contempt.
I'm one of them.
Yet I can argue the operational detail of aviation with you `til the cows come home... from heavys through to fast jets.
For me, one of the most wonderful things I've ever read, is the slogan of the EAA - in the US.
It simply says "When did you know?"
I knew when I first flew in an NAC 737 as a child.
That'll give you all an idea of how old I am.
On corporate Governance - as pilots, you DO have a place in the running of your company.
But in my humble opinion - it is not on the Board of QF.
The Board's role in any business is to represent investors.
It's job is to ask the naive lay-person questions of management that experts would not, for fear of being exposed as fools.
So with genuine respect gentlemen and ladies of the cockpit, the place for the rare beast of a management pilot who knows the operational detail of how to fly long-haul, is not a union hard man, or woman, and is open to learning about the perilous financial complexities of running an airline - is on the Executive Committee.
And - you can still fly line - or you should be able to.
I sat behind Morgan on a descent into AKL in a lovely 777 just before I left.
He was laughing about how he should have been able to remember the company procedures because he wrote them all.
Was also due to meet with the Exec committee on Monday morning.
And then we crossed 10,000 feet - sterile cockpit - and it all went very businesslike.
It can be done.

No offence Tartare, but I'm sure that there are plenty of former fast jet drivers following this, and if they've also seen threads like

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ought-jsf.html

then there might be a few raised eyebrows. Nothing wrong with asking questions, but if you think you can argue the operational details of fast jets 'til the cows come home, when a couple of weeks ago you'd never even heard of John Boyd and didn't know that the F-14 was the USN alternative to the F-111B, then you're having a bit of a lend of yourself. Where that leaves your credibility on all the other stuff is not for me to say.

Jack of all trades, master of none

In 2010 Nick Xenophon proposed an amendment to the Qantas Sale Act ensuring that a person with Engineering background and Operational/Pilot background be appointed to the board and this would be written into the Act. Ignored of course by the Minister of "do nothing" Mr Albanese. While the corporate structure of Qantas and the Constitution is written to allow for this it has been proved by the last three CEOs (Strong as well) that this system does not work and it has accelerated exponentially in recent times with a certain Chairman who is a self-confessed aviation novice and both him and the CEO are running roughshod over everyone that has a differing opinion(not unlike in Germany in the 1930s and 40s). This will get worse before it gets better because there is nothing wrong with the IR laws/workers in this land but there is a hell of a lot wrong with Management and Corporate Governance and that will take a while to change.
As for PW he is another example of the sycophant culture that exists at Qantas. Personally I encourage debate as it creates a healthier and more resilient culture/business.The Australian dollar will hit 70c or below in the not to distant future and along with massive unemployment Australians will become competitive and Holden closure will be seen as a stupid decision by a Treasurer who is clearly out of his depth.
Germany is a great example of what can be achieved by having workers represented on the board. Lufthansa is still run by Engineers/Pilots and has broadened it revenue base and while not what it used to be is still Investment grade even through it's costs are double that of Qantas. It has broadened its expertise using it's own name not trying to kill it.

Having a pilot and an engineer on the board probably won't accomplish anything. Think Chris Manning and an engineering equivalent.

Business acumen doesn't just grow on trees, and any chump can get daddy to put them through Harvard, so I agree that a pilot or engineer per se, should be on the Board, but it should be the right pilot or engineer.

Fair point itsnotthathard.
Written late at night.
If you read a bit further up the John Boyd post you'll also see I was quite open about the fact that I am not and have never been a fast jet pilot... as I have been in other posts.
In fact I asked to be corrected if I was wrong.
I guess what I should have written is that I have a great interest in the operational details of fast jet flying.
R/e airline flying and corporate governance - the rest of you can be the judge on whether I know what I'm talking about or not.

Boards represent shareholders. That is their role, just as unions represent employees who choose to have this representation.

AJ deserves to be sacked by the board because he has failed to deliver value to shareholders; in fact he has destroyed shareholder wealth. He has also achieved a trifecta by disengaging employees and alienating customers but the board should be representing the shareholders and fire him on the first criteria alone.

Problem is he has LC's backing, and LC is chairman of the board. LC is just as guilty as AJ, if not more so, and he's a lot harder to get rid of than a CEO.

That's why I used the term "equivalent" and the word "Virgin" not Virgin Tech.

Once you build up the model of how Virgin, as a whole, get their engineering done, as a whole, they utilise far fewer FTEs than QF on a scaled basis. QF can't even get the economies of scale for overhead and other costs to work for them.