Failure To Understand Qantas Strategy - Inquiry Needed.
Thread Starter
Failure To Understand Qantas Strategy - Inquiry Needed.
It seems the cat is out of the bag; at least one person is calling for a Government inquiry into the Qantas business strategy.
Qantas hits political turbulence on Capitol Hill | Plane Talking
To me, this makes perfect sense. There is Australian legislation - the Qantas Sale Act, that is relevant to the actions of the company and it is therefore right and proper to examine the effect of the legislation on the Australian community and the airlines owners.
To put it simply - I cannot understand the wayQantas is managed.
The APA bid stank to high heaven. Is there a pattern of behaviour here?
Since the time of the APA bid or perhaps earlier, I fail to understand for the life of me why some actions of the company appear to directly destroy shareholder value.
If this is simple stupidity on the part of the appointed Directors and managers then all is well and good, and it most probably is. Similarly, the behaviour of Qantas in trying to gouge the last cent it can from Australian air travelers is its perfect right.
However, I, and apparently others, fail to understand why Qantas appears to consistently take actions that not only don't make it any money, but drive revenue away - and Qantas is not supposed to be a charity.
These actions include:
1. Failure to cater to the demand for direct international flights from State Capitals other than Sydney - which would win it market share.
2. Pruning of its route network despite anecdotal evidence that the flights were consistently full.
3. The entire APA bid, lock stock and barrel.
4. The current strategy of diluting the value of the brand via Jetstar, compounded by perhaps being economical with the truth about the purpose of Jetstar, if claims on Pprune about untruths are to be believed.
5. The deliberate treatment of the entire non management staff of the airline with studied contempt - any HR professional can catalog this activity - the latest example being to announce that futures will be decided on August 24Th - what is the point of making that announcement four weeks in advance - other than increasing the levels of stress and fear in the employees?
6. The new Asian "strategy" which is destined to fail. Asia is littered with the bones of Western investors.
One has to wonder; are the Qantas Board and management terminally stupid? The people of Australia. plus ALL the shareholders, are entitled to know.
I know its probably just simple stupidity, but perhaps the Government should ask that question.
Qantas hits political turbulence on Capitol Hill | Plane Talking
To me, this makes perfect sense. There is Australian legislation - the Qantas Sale Act, that is relevant to the actions of the company and it is therefore right and proper to examine the effect of the legislation on the Australian community and the airlines owners.
To put it simply - I cannot understand the wayQantas is managed.
The APA bid stank to high heaven. Is there a pattern of behaviour here?
Since the time of the APA bid or perhaps earlier, I fail to understand for the life of me why some actions of the company appear to directly destroy shareholder value.
If this is simple stupidity on the part of the appointed Directors and managers then all is well and good, and it most probably is. Similarly, the behaviour of Qantas in trying to gouge the last cent it can from Australian air travelers is its perfect right.
However, I, and apparently others, fail to understand why Qantas appears to consistently take actions that not only don't make it any money, but drive revenue away - and Qantas is not supposed to be a charity.
These actions include:
1. Failure to cater to the demand for direct international flights from State Capitals other than Sydney - which would win it market share.
2. Pruning of its route network despite anecdotal evidence that the flights were consistently full.
3. The entire APA bid, lock stock and barrel.
4. The current strategy of diluting the value of the brand via Jetstar, compounded by perhaps being economical with the truth about the purpose of Jetstar, if claims on Pprune about untruths are to be believed.
5. The deliberate treatment of the entire non management staff of the airline with studied contempt - any HR professional can catalog this activity - the latest example being to announce that futures will be decided on August 24Th - what is the point of making that announcement four weeks in advance - other than increasing the levels of stress and fear in the employees?
6. The new Asian "strategy" which is destined to fail. Asia is littered with the bones of Western investors.
One has to wonder; are the Qantas Board and management terminally stupid? The people of Australia. plus ALL the shareholders, are entitled to know.
I know its probably just simple stupidity, but perhaps the Government should ask that question.
Last edited by Sunfish; 17th Aug 2011 at 07:47.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This post might be better on this thread.
I have read and heard numerous times in the recent past and in particular since yesterday’s announcement of QF’s plans the “fact” that Qantas international is a fading business, that it is losing $200,000,000 a year and that this is attributable to the “fact” that its costs are 20% higher than its competitors.
At no time have any of the politicians and particularly the press who have been handed this line indicated that they have queried these figures and asked Alan Joyce to demonstrate the veracity of his claims. They have all sheepishly believed what they have been told.
I would like to state categorically that what he is saying is absolute rubbish. I can say this as, in early 2006, at a meeting which was attended by Geoff Dixon, Peter Gregg, John Borghetti, Kevin Brown, Sue Bussell and other senior management of Qantas that AIPA representatives made what can only be described as a spectacular offer to Qantas senior management.
AIPA made the offer that Qantas Long Haul pilots would operate the 4 x A330 aircraft that were about to go to Jetstar under terms and conditions similar to the contract that Qantas Australian Airlines operated the B767s out of Cairns. The conditions were of the order of a 20 – 25% reduction in hourly rates of pay compared to Qantas Long Haul B767 rates along with concessions on scheduling arrangements, allowances, accommodation, crew rest facilities and other items. The consideration was that Qantas Long Haul pilots operate the aircraft rather than giving the flying to Jetstar.
In reply to the offer Peter Gregg (as spokesman) made a dismissive gesture with his hand and said words to the effect “Don’t even think about it, we’re not interested.”
It was clear then, and remains abundantly clear, that the whole direction that Qantas senior management were heading had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with industrial policy. What is being said now about costs is a smokescreen to cover their continuing industrial agenda.
The press and politicians have to take a stand and make Alan Joyce and the Qantas Board open the Qantas books and accounts to a public inspection and either prove what they are saying is true or accept that it is all about industrial strategies and hidden agendas.
I have read and heard numerous times in the recent past and in particular since yesterday’s announcement of QF’s plans the “fact” that Qantas international is a fading business, that it is losing $200,000,000 a year and that this is attributable to the “fact” that its costs are 20% higher than its competitors.
At no time have any of the politicians and particularly the press who have been handed this line indicated that they have queried these figures and asked Alan Joyce to demonstrate the veracity of his claims. They have all sheepishly believed what they have been told.
I would like to state categorically that what he is saying is absolute rubbish. I can say this as, in early 2006, at a meeting which was attended by Geoff Dixon, Peter Gregg, John Borghetti, Kevin Brown, Sue Bussell and other senior management of Qantas that AIPA representatives made what can only be described as a spectacular offer to Qantas senior management.
AIPA made the offer that Qantas Long Haul pilots would operate the 4 x A330 aircraft that were about to go to Jetstar under terms and conditions similar to the contract that Qantas Australian Airlines operated the B767s out of Cairns. The conditions were of the order of a 20 – 25% reduction in hourly rates of pay compared to Qantas Long Haul B767 rates along with concessions on scheduling arrangements, allowances, accommodation, crew rest facilities and other items. The consideration was that Qantas Long Haul pilots operate the aircraft rather than giving the flying to Jetstar.
In reply to the offer Peter Gregg (as spokesman) made a dismissive gesture with his hand and said words to the effect “Don’t even think about it, we’re not interested.”
It was clear then, and remains abundantly clear, that the whole direction that Qantas senior management were heading had nothing to do with economics and everything to do with industrial policy. What is being said now about costs is a smokescreen to cover their continuing industrial agenda.
The press and politicians have to take a stand and make Alan Joyce and the Qantas Board open the Qantas books and accounts to a public inspection and either prove what they are saying is true or accept that it is all about industrial strategies and hidden agendas.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've already written on another thread, Qantas doesn't own its International flying rights, The Australian Government owns them through bilateral negotiations. Therefore if Qantas wants to change the method of how it operates those rights it can't just hand them over to its code share partners. It has to re-apply in the IASC for either a variation or a re-issue.
The IASC should not be a rubber stamp.The conditions that they work under are set by the IASC Act and the current Ministers Statement. If any organisations or individuals disagree with what Qantas wants to do, then the organisation or individual can make a comment within the confines of the 2 above documents.
This is a public enquiry with published results. It is up to all organisations and individuals, if they have an opinion on what Qantas wants to do, to comment on them during the enquiry period. It is probably worth contacting the IASC and registering your interest in the coming Qantas route changes and asking for notification when the process begins.
I urge all PPruners to familiarise themselves with the IASC site and its procedures which are openly on the web. Be ready to submit and keep an eye out for the time that Qantas tries to change its flying.
It will also be interesting to see if the Minister changes his policy directive/statement before the enquiry begins.I'm sure there will be pressure to do just that from a number of MPs. Maybe you could explain the process to your local MP?
The website is International Air Services Commission
The time to do something is now!!!
Wunwing
The IASC should not be a rubber stamp.The conditions that they work under are set by the IASC Act and the current Ministers Statement. If any organisations or individuals disagree with what Qantas wants to do, then the organisation or individual can make a comment within the confines of the 2 above documents.
This is a public enquiry with published results. It is up to all organisations and individuals, if they have an opinion on what Qantas wants to do, to comment on them during the enquiry period. It is probably worth contacting the IASC and registering your interest in the coming Qantas route changes and asking for notification when the process begins.
I urge all PPruners to familiarise themselves with the IASC site and its procedures which are openly on the web. Be ready to submit and keep an eye out for the time that Qantas tries to change its flying.
It will also be interesting to see if the Minister changes his policy directive/statement before the enquiry begins.I'm sure there will be pressure to do just that from a number of MPs. Maybe you could explain the process to your local MP?
The website is International Air Services Commission
The time to do something is now!!!
Wunwing
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick Xenaphon called for a forensic audit today and it's gaining traction in Canberra. Watch out for Adam Bandt-an IR barrister for the Greens, and keep in mind that they hold the balance of power min the Senate. It's not Clifford's ideal government set-up.
Sunfish, your re-post of doing business in Asia was another great read.
Wunwing, you are also spot on, but how did the routes transfer immediately from QF to J*?
Sunfish, your re-post of doing business in Asia was another great read.
Wunwing, you are also spot on, but how did the routes transfer immediately from QF to J*?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that for Jetstar to take over some QF routes would require a determination from the IASC.The Qantas group would have to request a change.
The US, NZ and Singapore situation is a little different because of Open Skies but I suspect still have to go through the IASC.
This whole project may be risky on the non open sky routes as Virgin may apply as an alternative carrier.
Wunwing
The US, NZ and Singapore situation is a little different because of Open Skies but I suspect still have to go through the IASC.
This whole project may be risky on the non open sky routes as Virgin may apply as an alternative carrier.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 17th Aug 2011 at 11:03.
This is just a simple case of the smartest people in the room employing their teams of lawyers working out how to circumvent legislation that's a roadblock to their plans of making the biggest bonus possible.
Brilliant plan, making Qantas at its essence a domestic only carrier, of course it's all within the legal framework envisioned at the time the company was sold off.
The spirit of the legislation and why it was created in the first place ? That's another story. I'm sure the pollies at the time as justification as to why they would sell off a piece of Australia as it once was, was that it was always going to be a piece of Australia.
To use the aforementioned piece of Australia as a sink of cash to dip their respective hands into to go expeditioning around the Asian world offering aircraft and capital to the first person who agrees to be a Qantas proxy (like the JQ Asia setup) 51%** (**cash provided by Qantas and controlled by Qantas just like JQ Asia.. read the annual reports it's all stated as such) local owner, really you can put lipstick on it, dress it up, tell the world it isn't what it actually is, but at the end of the day its still a way of circumventing Australian legislation and workplace conditions and being able to base Qantas in an Asian centre with staff on Asian conditions yet still claiming to be Australian. I don't buy, neither does anyone else. The only asset these days Qantas has left is its Australianism, fleet/product/route structure/ethics, they're all way behind and second class.
All of this is done whilst;
A) retiring all by 6 747's
B) effectively cancelling the remaining orders of A380's they're not legally obliged to pay for - sure they're 'deferred' at the moment, wait a year or 2 when the international segment still doesn't return the cost of capital and it's punished once more. Mark my words, 6 A380's cancelled = 50 A320's for JQ:Xsia in 2014
C) engineering the conditions of lack of fleet investment which caused the Ansett downfall in the first place
D) all the while propping up half a dozen proxy airlines in the region at the expense of Qantas and its international division, its product, its capacity, its route structure.
Management at its finest!
Brilliant plan, making Qantas at its essence a domestic only carrier, of course it's all within the legal framework envisioned at the time the company was sold off.
The spirit of the legislation and why it was created in the first place ? That's another story. I'm sure the pollies at the time as justification as to why they would sell off a piece of Australia as it once was, was that it was always going to be a piece of Australia.
To use the aforementioned piece of Australia as a sink of cash to dip their respective hands into to go expeditioning around the Asian world offering aircraft and capital to the first person who agrees to be a Qantas proxy (like the JQ Asia setup) 51%** (**cash provided by Qantas and controlled by Qantas just like JQ Asia.. read the annual reports it's all stated as such) local owner, really you can put lipstick on it, dress it up, tell the world it isn't what it actually is, but at the end of the day its still a way of circumventing Australian legislation and workplace conditions and being able to base Qantas in an Asian centre with staff on Asian conditions yet still claiming to be Australian. I don't buy, neither does anyone else. The only asset these days Qantas has left is its Australianism, fleet/product/route structure/ethics, they're all way behind and second class.
All of this is done whilst;
A) retiring all by 6 747's
B) effectively cancelling the remaining orders of A380's they're not legally obliged to pay for - sure they're 'deferred' at the moment, wait a year or 2 when the international segment still doesn't return the cost of capital and it's punished once more. Mark my words, 6 A380's cancelled = 50 A320's for JQ:Xsia in 2014
C) engineering the conditions of lack of fleet investment which caused the Ansett downfall in the first place
D) all the while propping up half a dozen proxy airlines in the region at the expense of Qantas and its international division, its product, its capacity, its route structure.
Management at its finest!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who was involved in the sale process, albeit from the Union side, I think that the last comment is re-inventing the process after it is completed.
A number of unforseen events occurred after the sale and Australia and the World are very different places now than they were when de-regulation was approved by Parliament.
I don't think that a Government owned Qantas, or for that matter TAA/Australian would have survived in its old form even if 1989 hadn't happened.Too many pollies and their mates would have had fingers in the pie and too many trade negotiations completed with "free traders".
Under the old Govt owned system the Govt of the day were renowned for trading off Qantas entitlements for more sheep exports or a defense treaty or two. The Industry could have been much worse off. Like it or not, we are where we are. It is now up to ordinary Australians to see if the Democratic system works or if "suits" win.
If we don't work the political system you loose. AIPA AFAP and the ALAEA dropped the ball on this a long time ago. It will be hard to pick it up, but might be just achievable in the current political climate. It isn't for the lazy, frugal or faint hearted.
Wunwing
A number of unforseen events occurred after the sale and Australia and the World are very different places now than they were when de-regulation was approved by Parliament.
I don't think that a Government owned Qantas, or for that matter TAA/Australian would have survived in its old form even if 1989 hadn't happened.Too many pollies and their mates would have had fingers in the pie and too many trade negotiations completed with "free traders".
Under the old Govt owned system the Govt of the day were renowned for trading off Qantas entitlements for more sheep exports or a defense treaty or two. The Industry could have been much worse off. Like it or not, we are where we are. It is now up to ordinary Australians to see if the Democratic system works or if "suits" win.
If we don't work the political system you loose. AIPA AFAP and the ALAEA dropped the ball on this a long time ago. It will be hard to pick it up, but might be just achievable in the current political climate. It isn't for the lazy, frugal or faint hearted.
Wunwing
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Telstra's foray into Hong Kong ended with a $6 billion + loss , NAB 's foray into US mortgages ended with a $2 billion + loss . Qantas to Asia watch this space . I guess the Lawyers , accountants and Maths Nerds didn't bother with history .
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I posted many months ago on the LAME EBA thread, intent has a lot of weight in contract law.
Never mind just the wording of the Qantas Sales Act. What was the intent of the Qantas Sales Act in regards to its International Operations when it was passed into legislation pre-privatisation?
Watch this space as pressure for a senate inquiry is being mounted in Canberra to look into what the intent of the act was!
Never mind just the wording of the Qantas Sales Act. What was the intent of the Qantas Sales Act in regards to its International Operations when it was passed into legislation pre-privatisation?
Watch this space as pressure for a senate inquiry is being mounted in Canberra to look into what the intent of the act was!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive my ignorance but simply put, if QANTAS collapsed while Jetstar continued to "prosper", the Qantas sales act 1992 would have no bearing and leave the remainder of senior "Qantas/jetstar" management free to sell off Jetstar to the highest bidder?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't people get their head around the proposition that without Qantas there is no Jetstar business. If you think an airline can survive on the margin from coffee and muffins them I have a Harbour Bridge with your name on it.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas offers scrutiny of books to prove losses
Hot off the press:
Qantas offers scrutiny of books to prove losses | The Australian
Apparently finance guy G Evans and KPMG are gonna sit down with AIPA over tea and bickies to look at some cooked books today. Great! Only it'll take a week with a team of forensic accountants (ones that've never worked for QF!), not one arvo. Also the article did not include the ALAEA. I think you need to be there FedSec.
Would it not be better to be armed with hard facts, ie. dates, times, events (eg Jet* goes u/s on such and such a date, Qf sends replacement a/c. Open the books to that date and find out who paid QF what for the a/c, fuel, crew, accom etc).
Anyone out there with this sort of info to put on the table?
Qantas offers scrutiny of books to prove losses | The Australian
Apparently finance guy G Evans and KPMG are gonna sit down with AIPA over tea and bickies to look at some cooked books today. Great! Only it'll take a week with a team of forensic accountants (ones that've never worked for QF!), not one arvo. Also the article did not include the ALAEA. I think you need to be there FedSec.
Would it not be better to be armed with hard facts, ie. dates, times, events (eg Jet* goes u/s on such and such a date, Qf sends replacement a/c. Open the books to that date and find out who paid QF what for the a/c, fuel, crew, accom etc).
Anyone out there with this sort of info to put on the table?
Regarding the Qantas Sales Act and its effect on the expansion of Jetstar, it is interesting to look at the discussion of the proposed bill in 2007 where they were looking at controlling ownership of Jetstar (in response to APA bid). The discussion below was regarding how Qantas could shell out operations under Jetstar or some other entity and effectively bypass the intent of the act. The Chair of the committee seemed to disbelieve it could happen:
Perhaps someone should write to the Chair, Senator Ronaldson, and ask him if he is still in disbelief.
CHAIR—Paragraph 12 of your submission states: ... safeguards in the Act can be avoided by Qantas simply transferring its business to a subsidiary such as Jetstar. Isn’t the protection for that contained in 5.1 and 5.2 of the deed?
Mr Somerville—In what specific way?
CHAIR—In relation to transfer of shares and what undertakings have been given.
Mr Somerville—We are not talking about transferring shares; we are talking about transferring assets and business. Shares can remain as they are.
CHAIR—Which aspects of the business are you talking about?
Mr Somerville—The business of Qantas: the aeroplanes, the employees, the routes—
CHAIR—Are you seriously suggesting that Qantas is going to keep the shares under the banner of Qantas and shift all the operations to Jetstar?
Mr Somerville—And rename it whatever. You can sell a licence or a business name; you can shift assets— you can do any of that, of course. This is a large consortium with a very serious level of debt.
CHAIR—I put it to you that the community would view that comment with utter disbelief.
Mr Somerville—You may say that. We have an advice—
CHAIR—I take it you disagree.
Mr Somerville—We have an advice to that effect from someone who, if not the leading senior counsel in this country, is one of the top three. From my perspective, I am comfortable with that opinion from Bret Walker that that could occur.
CHAIR—I was not suggesting that there might not be scenarios where it could occur. I do not know what the legalities of that are. Do you honestly believe that, with the level of public scrutiny that would involve, that is ever going to be an option that would be seriously considered by the consortium partners?
Senator FIELDING—I think they are saying that they are raising it as a serious concern and why should that concern be left open to interpretation in the Qantas Sale Act.
CHAIR—Senator Fielding, it is very generous of you to answer the question. Do you seriously suggest that the Australian community or a government of any persuasion, or indeed Senator Fielding, would countenance that scenario?
Mr Somerville—It is already happening: as routes transfer from Qantas to Jetstar; as we find that Australian Airlines wet leasing is now flying white aircraft with red trails. I am not sure if you have flown on any of those flights, but I wonder if you have been able to notice that difference. This is not something that is going to happen overnight; it will happen over a period of time. It is not a matter of whether the Australian public could seriously countenance it. If it happens in steps, it can certainly happen, and it is already happening. It does not need to be done in a big bang way. I would expect that if this consortium were to do it—in the way that it has, from its perspective, sensibly structured its bid to avoid the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act—it would be looking at all of these potential options in its business plans. I for one am not unsubtle enough to think that it would happen in a big way from one day to the next, but it could happen.
CHAIR—Thank you very much for your time and your detailed submissions. Mr Somerville—Thank you, Chair.
Mr Somerville—In what specific way?
CHAIR—In relation to transfer of shares and what undertakings have been given.
Mr Somerville—We are not talking about transferring shares; we are talking about transferring assets and business. Shares can remain as they are.
CHAIR—Which aspects of the business are you talking about?
Mr Somerville—The business of Qantas: the aeroplanes, the employees, the routes—
CHAIR—Are you seriously suggesting that Qantas is going to keep the shares under the banner of Qantas and shift all the operations to Jetstar?
Mr Somerville—And rename it whatever. You can sell a licence or a business name; you can shift assets— you can do any of that, of course. This is a large consortium with a very serious level of debt.
CHAIR—I put it to you that the community would view that comment with utter disbelief.
Mr Somerville—You may say that. We have an advice—
CHAIR—I take it you disagree.
Mr Somerville—We have an advice to that effect from someone who, if not the leading senior counsel in this country, is one of the top three. From my perspective, I am comfortable with that opinion from Bret Walker that that could occur.
CHAIR—I was not suggesting that there might not be scenarios where it could occur. I do not know what the legalities of that are. Do you honestly believe that, with the level of public scrutiny that would involve, that is ever going to be an option that would be seriously considered by the consortium partners?
Senator FIELDING—I think they are saying that they are raising it as a serious concern and why should that concern be left open to interpretation in the Qantas Sale Act.
CHAIR—Senator Fielding, it is very generous of you to answer the question. Do you seriously suggest that the Australian community or a government of any persuasion, or indeed Senator Fielding, would countenance that scenario?
Mr Somerville—It is already happening: as routes transfer from Qantas to Jetstar; as we find that Australian Airlines wet leasing is now flying white aircraft with red trails. I am not sure if you have flown on any of those flights, but I wonder if you have been able to notice that difference. This is not something that is going to happen overnight; it will happen over a period of time. It is not a matter of whether the Australian public could seriously countenance it. If it happens in steps, it can certainly happen, and it is already happening. It does not need to be done in a big bang way. I would expect that if this consortium were to do it—in the way that it has, from its perspective, sensibly structured its bid to avoid the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act—it would be looking at all of these potential options in its business plans. I for one am not unsubtle enough to think that it would happen in a big way from one day to the next, but it could happen.
CHAIR—Thank you very much for your time and your detailed submissions. Mr Somerville—Thank you, Chair.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What should be kept in mind is the immense commercial competition posed by Middle East airlines. This is essentially driving long haul south east asia to Europe operators out of business.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4Greens, you are correct, however Qantas is handing them one resource that is in genuine short supply to complete their strategy - pilots, ironic isn't it.
Further, the Asian strategy will require a large number of those same pilots in the future if the 20% compound annual growth rate is to sustained for more than a few years.
Further, the Asian strategy will require a large number of those same pilots in the future if the 20% compound annual growth rate is to sustained for more than a few years.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What should be kept in mind is the immense commercial competition posed by Middle East airlines. This is essentially driving long haul south east asia to Europe operators out of business.
That may or not be the case. But how many flights a week, let alone a day do we have from Aus to the Middle east, in direct competition with them? Zero. Where are our Triples to combat this leverage, an order that should have been announced a couple days ago instead of this pathetic "Aussie record" a/c order of 110 A320's? To fly where? Oh, thats right, Japan. Thats where the QF Long haul opposition really lies... Really bright. Smart. What a bunch of schoolyard clowns.......
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cull the chaff
Nick Xenaphon called for a forensic audit today and it's gaining traction in Canberra. Watch out for Adam Bandt-an IR barrister for the Greens, and keep in mind that they hold the balance of power min the Senate. It's not Clifford's ideal government set-up.
Mind you, Katter's comments last night were pure gold! Perhaps if somebody curtailed his red bull and ritalin diet he would be a little more managable and would make a worthy partner to Xenaphon!!
As for the rest of the spineless toads in government, all you could muster in regards to commentary on this whole sordid affair was 'it is regrettable'! You pathetic limp wristed donkeys, bending over for corporate Australia, hang your heads in shame for being prepared to sit on your thumbs and allow an icon, a unique part of Australian culture get pis#ed away into the wind. What's next, allow a mining company to mine Uluru, or rape the Kakadu ? All politicians need to act in behalf of the electorate who elected them and stop this destruction.
Folks, this is a call to arms. If ever there was a time for Australians to band together and prevent a tragedy, this is it. 20 odd million people have the right and need to stop this now. We need to make ourselves heard, and if it means to force out the Irishman, his execs and any political wimps in the process then lets do it, now.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm trying to convince my missus that we'll move to SA just so I can vote for him!
Senator X has for a while smelt a rat with the Rat, now though pollies from the other parties are getting on board. Greg Serle was the co-chair of the Senate enquiry so he is fully aware of what's going on with aviation at the moment. AJ can talk to as many media outlets as he wants but he is losing the all important political battle. There are no votes in Asia.