Originally Posted by wheels_down
(Post 10776951)
PS has pulled back what 20% of the workforce since he started?
In August last year he announced 750 jobs were going to be cut as part of a rightsizing. On the basis that he'd been there for five months at that stage most people thought that he'd have the 750 names in his back pocket or at the very least be well advanced in planning. In a 7 November 2019 piece in the SMH it was reported that most of the 750 headcount reduction would be completed by Christmas. Depending on who you listen to, as of 1 January this year either just 140 of the mooted 750 had gone or none had gone but there were plans to cut 400 jobs by the end of March with another 350 to go by the end of June. So, much talking, little planning, less cutting. If you turn to the FY20-H1 interim report delivered in late February, subsequent to announcing the 750 'rightsizing' employee costs went up by $42 million (6.3 percent). After you allow for redundancy payments for the 140 that were meant to have been exited, the Schuster bonus and EBA escalators, there's still $10 million in additional employee costs that is unaccounted for. That seems to suggest that they added headcount. There was no hiring freeze in place prior to the COVID-19 crisis biting. Subsequent to the coronavirus crisis emerging they've apparently made 1,000 people redundant, likely some of the 750 plus the Tiger and NZ-based staff. That seems to gel with the headcount numbers that Deloitte is bandying around (9,020 employees). So, all up pre- and post-crisis they've managed to reduce headcount by about 10 percent with the vast majority of that reduction occurring post-crisis.
Originally Posted by wheels_down
(Post 10776951)
HQ will likely move to Sydney so expect another 10-20% who won’t commit.
Originally Posted by wheels_down
(Post 10776951)
What Fuel price is that figure based on?
|
For 'what', It is Not worth- it has been 'reported' (allegedly/apparently) -
1/ 'Said', "Note Holders"- not 'that' freekin Happy/Impressed, with NIL Inclusion on the 'Committee of Inspection'..... 2/ 'Apparently'- a veritable onslaught of 'New' (revised)- Confidentiality Agreements, being 'Sprayed' around at this time.............., go figure????? Shall, keep it Blunt/Descriptive, for this...., per chance 'is' the model being flogged, the one Paul........... Rgds all S28- BE |
Originally Posted by Section28- BE
(Post 10777173)
For 'what', It is Not worth- it has been 'reported' (allegedly/apparently) -
1/ 'Said', "Note Holders"- not 'that' freekin Happy/Impressed, with NIL Inclusion on the 'Committee of Inspection'..... 2/ 'Apparently'- a veritable onslaught of 'New' (revised)- Confidentiality Agreements, being 'Sprayed' around at this time.............., go figure????? Shall, keep it Blunt/Descriptive, for this...., per chance 'is' the model being flogged, the one Paul........... Rgds all S28- BE Dot - unions raise no objection to the appointment of Strawbridge et al (Deloitte) as Administrator. Dot - Strawbridge announces no plans for redundancies or changes to employment during administration. Dot - Employee representatives (10 unions plus Virgin's Chief Legal and Risk Officer) make up one third of CoI I'm sure there's some joining to be done there somewhere. |
Got-Ya 'Blackout'............., well done.
You, would Know- Sister. Rgds S28 |
Originally Posted by Blackout
(Post 10777226)
Gas turbine blades of conventional rotorcraft turboshaft engines are optimized to operate at nearly a fixed speed and a fixed incidence angle. If the operating condition of the engine changes, then the flow through the turbine may need to be guided to a more optimum direction.
One way to do this is with variable turbine nozzle geometry. But this standard method has some disadvantages including increased weight and complexity, as well as a limited operating range since the nozzle vanes can only be turned to a certain point before severe flow incidence angles disrupt the rotating blades downstream. |
Orrrrh- 'Cut & Paste'........., could not be so.
Rgds S28 |
Originally Posted by Paragraph377
(Post 10775804)
You can’t compare VA with QF. It’s like comparing a vagina to a dick..
|
Originally Posted by Blackout
(Post 10777281)
Still -'Serves' its 'Purpose' as a- 'Metaphor' -moving 'FORWARD'.
|
Originally Posted by airdualbleedfault
(Post 10775441)
Despite the plethora of flogs (Inc Mr Lim) here that should be running merchant banks instead of flying aeroplanes, nobody has explained in layman's terms how Kwantarse can pay virtually all of their staff significantly more than Virgin and still turn a large profit, if indeed as the experts say the EBAs need to be slashed at VA???????
QF & VA had way too many staff getting paid too much, BUT QF had larger share of corporate market, who pay top dollar. You only had to look around at airports, with many well paid staff, standing around doing stuff all between flights. New QF will have less staff probably being paid less or paid same but with more required (not saying necessarily pilots will work more hours). New VA, if it gets up (can the administrators stuff it up ? Looks possible) will have a huge haircut in terms of staff & pay & conditions, otherwise a totally new airline will pick up either B737 or A320 aircraft leases for a song & pay nothing like QF/VA have in the past. A new airline will only have to fly trunk routes more frequently than JQ & have cheaper fares than QF. Govts might have to subsidise non-trunk routes or JQ will fly them at higher fares, which will hurt tourism industry recovery in the regions. Plenty of experienced ex VA & other airline staff, who would work for a lot less than they were getting, as have mortgages etc. A new airline might start slowly, hiring only as needed, but in this new world, they could probably start with 6-8 aircraft or less, doing triangle only to offer a schedule better than JQ. Remember JQ will never fly frequently on the golden triangle or will be competing with QF. What did Virgin Blue start with ? 2 x ex AN B734s wasn't it ? BNE/SYD only ? Seem to be plenty of venture capitalists around with plenty of cash to fund it. Wouldn't be surprised if some of pay of any new airline was either shares or % of profit. |
Remember JQ will never fly frequently on the golden triangle |
I remember an Airline that started in this country a few years ago, had only a hand full of planes of one type, the drivers started out on less $$$ than their competitors and they ran a very lean operation, even used spent paper in the printers! They did just the popular main routes tourist destinations mostly. They expanded to 14 airframes still all the one type, finally after a sucsesion of the usual CEO's CP's who thought they knew better the said Airline just started to operate on the black then along came a mother Airline who bought in to the said Airline a bit at a time and wanted to change the fleet type, synergy I think they call it, the new corporate 'in' word. From that day onwards the said Airline went backwards losing money like a kid at a lolly shop due missmanagment and a whole host of internal issues. Enter CV19, the lolly shop kid ran out of money, the mother Airline went bust".........said Airline was Tigers!
|
You only had to look around at airports, with many well paid staff, standing around doing stuff all between flights. |
Originally Posted by MickG0105
(Post 10776921)
So, that Deloitte marketing spiel is somewhat delusional.
|
Originally Posted by rmm
(Post 10777851)
So what would you have them do? Stand them down for 20 minutes then recall them?
|
Originally Posted by chookcooker
(Post 10777854)
you’ve seen it have you?
Its on the website. I almost fell off my chair reading it. |
Originally Posted by wishiwasupthere
(Post 10777874)
Has there ever been an airline in Australia as badly mismanaged in such a short time?
Bali... Fleet Transition.... Catering... Hong Kong ... Velocity buy-back ... 2019 notes issue ... |
Originally Posted by normanton
(Post 10777870)
Yes mate.
Its on the website. I almost fell off my chair reading it. |
Originally Posted by BNEA320
(Post 10777830)
so my 2 cents .....
QF & VA had way too many staff getting paid too much, BUT QF had larger share of corporate market, who pay top dollar. You only had to look around at airports, with many well paid staff, standing around doing stuff all between flights. New QF will have less staff probably being paid less or paid same but with more required (not saying necessarily pilots will work more hours). New VA, if it gets up (can the administrators stuff it up ? Looks possible) will have a huge haircut in terms of staff & pay & conditions, otherwise a totally new airline will pick up either B737 or A320 aircraft leases for a song & pay nothing like QF/VA have in the past. A new airline will only have to fly trunk routes more frequently than JQ & have cheaper fares than QF. Govts might have to subsidise non-trunk routes or JQ will fly them at higher fares, which will hurt tourism industry recovery in the regions. Plenty of experienced ex VA & other airline staff, who would work for a lot less than they were getting, as have mortgages etc. A new airline might start slowly, hiring only as needed, but in this new world, they could probably start with 6-8 aircraft or less, doing triangle only to offer a schedule better than JQ. Remember JQ will never fly frequently on the golden triangle or will be competing with QF. What did Virgin Blue start with ? 2 x ex AN B734s wasn't it ? BNE/SYD only ? Seem to be plenty of venture capitalists around with plenty of cash to fund it. Wouldn't be surprised if some of pay of any new airline was either shares or % of profit. |
Originally Posted by chookcooker
(Post 10777854)
you’ve seen it have you?
|
Originally Posted by BNEA320
(Post 10777830)
so my 2 cents .....
QF & VA had way too many staff getting paid too much, BUT QF had larger share of corporate market, who pay top dollar. You only had to look around at airports, with many well paid staff, standing around doing stuff all between flights. New QF will have less staff probably being paid less or paid same but with more required (not saying necessarily pilots will work more hours). . |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:06. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.