Dixon's Salary
Refer to the Director's Report section of the Annual Report here. Specifically, page 58 of the Annual Report. (WARNING: 2.3MB download)
$6,482,673 for the 04/05 FY.
$6,482,673 for the 04/05 FY.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's a few zeros? Exxon just returned a profit of US$36 Billion for last year and now the CEO is retiring with a nice US$400MM handout plus US$1MM for a year's consultancy fee. Geoff Dixon must be feeling underpaid in comparison.
Oink! Oink!
Oink! Oink!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if we drop that to a still obscene amount of say $482,673 pa how much would the offset ($6M pa) assist with supporting say AUSTRALIAN national aircraft maintenance industry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Multiply this out across-industry and intra-industry borders and think of the AUSTRALIAN National industry investment.
This level of greed is disgusting.
Multiply this out across-industry and intra-industry borders and think of the AUSTRALIAN National industry investment.
This level of greed is disgusting.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The salary a CEO earns is justified given the enormous responsibility they have to the shareholders, employees and customers, not to mention the legal ramifications for making bad decisions.
No one wants to see Australian jobs go overseas, but he and the board made a decision that they believe to be the best for the company. If you do the wrong thing financially you could see Qantas go down the Ansett trail (they thought that would never happen!).
I don't have a viewpoint on whether Geoff is doing a good or poor job - I don't believe I am suitably qualified to make that judgement. What I do know is if you paid $400K for a CEO you would get someone sh!thouse and they'd make Dixon look like a god.
Given the experience guys like Dixon have in the business world, and the stress they face every day, $6M is justified.
No one wants to see Australian jobs go overseas, but he and the board made a decision that they believe to be the best for the company. If you do the wrong thing financially you could see Qantas go down the Ansett trail (they thought that would never happen!).
I don't have a viewpoint on whether Geoff is doing a good or poor job - I don't believe I am suitably qualified to make that judgement. What I do know is if you paid $400K for a CEO you would get someone sh!thouse and they'd make Dixon look like a god.
Given the experience guys like Dixon have in the business world, and the stress they face every day, $6M is justified.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I expected an argument based upon relativities.
And how much does the Prime Minister get - monkeys? And the CEO of TELSTRA get - monkey (don't answer that) and how many of the boys you support are currently (or should be) in the slammer - it is time to get real.
The relativities do not support this dimension. The dimension of these figures are immoral. Why then are the $200 and $300k jobs in AA under review by someone on God knows what sort of package? And if the relativities are correct then why are they not upheld by these CEO's with EBA's?
WDN and FTS your response is breathtaking and certainly not worthy of any further input from me.
And how much does the Prime Minister get - monkeys? And the CEO of TELSTRA get - monkey (don't answer that) and how many of the boys you support are currently (or should be) in the slammer - it is time to get real.
The relativities do not support this dimension. The dimension of these figures are immoral. Why then are the $200 and $300k jobs in AA under review by someone on God knows what sort of package? And if the relativities are correct then why are they not upheld by these CEO's with EBA's?
WDN and FTS your response is breathtaking and certainly not worthy of any further input from me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by VH-FTS
The salary a CEO earns is justified given the enormous responsibility they have to the shareholders, employees and customers, not to mention the legal ramifications for making bad decisions.
BOTH these guys have an enormous responsibility to the several hundred passengers aboard each aircraft that they captain/maintain.
If dicko makes a bad decicion.... shareholders potentially lose money.
If the pilot/LAME makes a bad decicion.... passengers potentially lose their LIVES!
Shareholders wallets are more important than passengers lives?
So how about we pay the Pilots/LAMES $6Million+ each p/a????
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supply and demand as well gents. How many people are out there suitably qualified to run one of Australia's top companies - not many - which allows them to negotiate a pay rate that suits them.
How many pilots are out there trying to get a job? Heaps! How many jobs are there? Significantly less, which is why they don't get paid as well.
LAMEs don't get paid too well either given their responsibility, but can expect to be paid slightly more than many pilots because there is more demand for them (how many kids want to grow up to be an aircraft mechanic?).
I think it stinks the Jetstar captains get $100K less per year than their mates from Qantas. It stinks people have to pay for aircraft or turbine ratings and the hours to get a job. It stinks pilots are out there prostituting themselves to get a job in flying. This is why we get paid lousy money.
Do you see this in the corporate world? No! People don't work for free so they can be CEO one day. And rightly or wrongly the people at the 'C' level - CEOs, CFOs, CIOs etc - are always going to feel they are superior to us, the mere plebs, and feel they deserve a higher pay packet. If Geoff Dixon or someone from upper management leave, the company as a whole suffers (for some period of time). If you, a pilot, leaves does the company suffer? No one will think twice, and there will be a hundred people lined up for your job.
Sorry about the long post, but a couple of more things to think about:
>>Shareholders wallets are more important than passengers lives?<<
In many decisions, the return for shareholders is a more important factor. Any airline will weigh up whether it is better financially to implement a new system or run the risk of killing 300 people. What is going to be better financially at the end of the day? Morally it is passenger lives, but morals are not always the most important thing in business.
>>And how much does the Prime Minister get - monkeys? And the CEO of TELSTRA get - monkey (don't answer that) and how many of the boys you support are currently (or should be) in the slammer - it is time to get real.<<
With Johnnie Howard and Telstra there are political reasons why they don't earn as much as the CEOs of other companies. In both cases if John or Sol was to earn more can you imagine the public scrutiny? But in reality, how many people really care how much Geoff Dixon gets paid. To the average Joe in the street it doesn't affect them.
At the end of the day, businesses are there to make money. As mentioned above, I don't always agree with the decisions but you really need to face reality instead of getting so upset.
How many pilots are out there trying to get a job? Heaps! How many jobs are there? Significantly less, which is why they don't get paid as well.
LAMEs don't get paid too well either given their responsibility, but can expect to be paid slightly more than many pilots because there is more demand for them (how many kids want to grow up to be an aircraft mechanic?).
I think it stinks the Jetstar captains get $100K less per year than their mates from Qantas. It stinks people have to pay for aircraft or turbine ratings and the hours to get a job. It stinks pilots are out there prostituting themselves to get a job in flying. This is why we get paid lousy money.
Do you see this in the corporate world? No! People don't work for free so they can be CEO one day. And rightly or wrongly the people at the 'C' level - CEOs, CFOs, CIOs etc - are always going to feel they are superior to us, the mere plebs, and feel they deserve a higher pay packet. If Geoff Dixon or someone from upper management leave, the company as a whole suffers (for some period of time). If you, a pilot, leaves does the company suffer? No one will think twice, and there will be a hundred people lined up for your job.
Sorry about the long post, but a couple of more things to think about:
>>Shareholders wallets are more important than passengers lives?<<
In many decisions, the return for shareholders is a more important factor. Any airline will weigh up whether it is better financially to implement a new system or run the risk of killing 300 people. What is going to be better financially at the end of the day? Morally it is passenger lives, but morals are not always the most important thing in business.
>>And how much does the Prime Minister get - monkeys? And the CEO of TELSTRA get - monkey (don't answer that) and how many of the boys you support are currently (or should be) in the slammer - it is time to get real.<<
With Johnnie Howard and Telstra there are political reasons why they don't earn as much as the CEOs of other companies. In both cases if John or Sol was to earn more can you imagine the public scrutiny? But in reality, how many people really care how much Geoff Dixon gets paid. To the average Joe in the street it doesn't affect them.
At the end of the day, businesses are there to make money. As mentioned above, I don't always agree with the decisions but you really need to face reality instead of getting so upset.
Last edited by VH-FTS; 18th Apr 2006 at 06:20.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VH-FTS
.....If Geoff Dixon or someone from upper management leave, the company as a whole sufers......
Geoff Dixon WAS good for Qantas....quite some time ago. Unfortunately, the true impact of his recent reign as CEO will not be realised for some time yet. If the 'shareholders' (who are also customers in many instances) understood the real state of the company - GD would be sacked tomorrow.
Most people (like you VH-FTS) benchmark a CEO's performance based only on his/her financial report card (a dangerously short term performance indicator)....However, a company's financial standing is only one of many areas which they are responsible. A CEO also has an equally important responsibility to the employees and in the case of Qantas - the CEO also has a resposibility to the travelling customer....that is, to provide the service they expect of Qantas. Sadly, neither the employees or the customers are very happy at the moment.
So - Does GD deserve his $6m plus package - I think NOT!
VH-FTS
OK I can understand why it would be political suicide to have the PM or the CEO of Telstra earning so much money so let’s compare Mr. Dixon’s salary to another comparable company, Cathay Pacific. The CEO Phillip Chen earned in 2005 HKD$9.292 Mil including basic salary, bonuses, allowance etc. In Australian dollars that equals AUD$1.659 Mil. QF and CX are similar in size and profit. Hong Kong generally attracts a much higher salary for these types of positions than Australia. For Geoff Dixon to honestly think he is worth 3.6 times what the CEO of CX is worth is, in my opinion a classic case of the pig in the trough syndrome. The shareholders of QF should wake up to themselves and have a look what CEO’s of comparable companies around the world are being paid. I think if they did they would be in for a shock. They are being fleeced by a profession. 
With Johnnie Howard and Telstra there are political reasons why they don't earn as much as the CEOs of other companies.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Secret base in Hoth...
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wanting to stir the pot too much, but I remember in a lecture once at uni. The lecturer (who mind you was an EX QANTAS executive manager) said to the class, "only fools will invest in QANTAS and in any airline for the matter". He then went on to discuss the volatility of the market it is in.
As a CEO he is great, he looks after his number one interest, the shareholders. But as a manager/leader, in my eyes he fails.
Gidday
CMN
As a CEO he is great, he looks after his number one interest, the shareholders. But as a manager/leader, in my eyes he fails.
Gidday
CMN
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My original comment was...
>>I don't have a viewpoint on whether Geoff is doing a good or poor job - I don't believe I am suitably qualified to make that judgement.<<
I have no opinion on whether he's doing a good job - I'm not an employee and I'm not a shareholder.
My argument is that $6M for a CEO can be justified and you cannot compare it to other roles within the company i.e. the safety debate. If Phillip Chen could only negotiate $1.7M when accepting the role it's his loss and the shareholder's gain.
>>I don't have a viewpoint on whether Geoff is doing a good or poor job - I don't believe I am suitably qualified to make that judgement.<<
I have no opinion on whether he's doing a good job - I'm not an employee and I'm not a shareholder.
My argument is that $6M for a CEO can be justified and you cannot compare it to other roles within the company i.e. the safety debate. If Phillip Chen could only negotiate $1.7M when accepting the role it's his loss and the shareholder's gain.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The salary a CEO earns is justified given the enormous responsibility they have to the shareholders, employees and customers, not to mention the legal ramifications for making bad decisions.
One of the issues that needs to be weighed up is risk and return. If you are a pilot or a LAME, you can get a job anywhere. Mess up, or be unlucky as a CEO then you are toast, permanently. Thats worth at least $250,000 p.a.
The next factor is that Qantas is a public company. That means that all your actions (or inactions) can and will be scrutinised and commented on, including wildely innaccurate comments. Your private life will be scrutinised if at all possible, and every action watched. Thats worth at least an extra $500,000 p.a.
And finally there is the special "Qantas Factor" - dealing with 35,000 prima donnas who argue endlessly among themselves and with management. Thats worth an extra $5,250,000
The next factor is that Qantas is a public company. That means that all your actions (or inactions) can and will be scrutinised and commented on, including wildely innaccurate comments. Your private life will be scrutinised if at all possible, and every action watched. Thats worth at least an extra $500,000 p.a.
And finally there is the special "Qantas Factor" - dealing with 35,000 prima donnas who argue endlessly among themselves and with management. Thats worth an extra $5,250,000
VH-FTS
That is why I finished my last post by saying:
AUD$6.0 mil isn't the norm in this industry and the shareholders of QF need to realise this. It isn't acceptable and there needs to be more accountability for decisions made in this country at board level that allows such obscene levels of remuneration especially when their sole business model is to slash and burn rather than being forward thinking and growing revenue by expanding the business. QF’s product today is trash compared to international standards and these buffoons’ are responsible. Yes they may have spent some money buying new aircraft but if all your staff which are your greatest asset are demoralised and can’t see a future for their career then the company has a problem. Shareholders of QF wake up. You may think you are smelling some beautiful flowers but the reality is you are smelling plastic ones scented with cheap No-Frills deodorant.
If Phillip Chen could only negotiate $1.7M when accepting the role it's his loss and the shareholder's gain.
The shareholders of QF should wake up to themselves and have a look what CEO’s of comparable companies around the world are being paid. I think if they did they would be in for a shock. They are being fleeced by a profession.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK this is all quite interesting and yes I remember my 101 Intro to Economics stuff but my aspect is different and is often not mainstream and I accept that.
I have no issue with GD or any other individual but the principal of the matter perhaps in terms of social and national concience. In my humble f*&^%$# opinion these salaries, remuneration and separation packages that are being provided to CEOs'/senior execs and even senior managers are out of control.
In this thread we are also seeing the deification of these people (al la George of the little village in Texas) and yet these are normal hard working people who have complex tasks with associated personal and career risks and yet are capable of making some myopic and astounding errors, just like all of us. I do not see evidence that outrageous salaries guard against this. They are certainly not super-human beings who herald more than 100 times the salary of "regular Joe's".
I do not wear argument that we cannot get this level of capability for less. For those who propose this argument, what level of remuneration would you baulk at because I disagree that market forces are at play here - $10M, $100M what?
So the dilemma is if they don't get it who does. The (perhaps Socialist) point I originally made is that in aggregate terms these astonishingly large amounts could be fed back into Australian industry. Yes I get upset at this stuff because I am passionate about the Australian aviation industry and the maintenance of national industry generally. Sorry about that.
I have no issue with GD or any other individual but the principal of the matter perhaps in terms of social and national concience. In my humble f*&^%$# opinion these salaries, remuneration and separation packages that are being provided to CEOs'/senior execs and even senior managers are out of control.
In this thread we are also seeing the deification of these people (al la George of the little village in Texas) and yet these are normal hard working people who have complex tasks with associated personal and career risks and yet are capable of making some myopic and astounding errors, just like all of us. I do not see evidence that outrageous salaries guard against this. They are certainly not super-human beings who herald more than 100 times the salary of "regular Joe's".
I do not wear argument that we cannot get this level of capability for less. For those who propose this argument, what level of remuneration would you baulk at because I disagree that market forces are at play here - $10M, $100M what?
So the dilemma is if they don't get it who does. The (perhaps Socialist) point I originally made is that in aggregate terms these astonishingly large amounts could be fed back into Australian industry. Yes I get upset at this stuff because I am passionate about the Australian aviation industry and the maintenance of national industry generally. Sorry about that.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My personal opinion regarding Mr Dixons pay is very simple.
1st- Is it in line with performance. Debatable. Airlines are lousy investments. Qantas is profitable and still solvent so he gets a tick.
2nd-Is his pay in proximity of his peers. Crikey.com ran a story many weeks ago comparing Mr Dixons renumeration with that of Emirates, Cathay and Singapores CEO's. Now Im not going to get into a conversion for exchange rates and living expenses type debate. However most of these Asian/ Middle Eastern CEO's were earning in the $1M to $2M per annum range, forgetting about exchange / conversion arguments.
I would submit that even with conversions taken into account Mr Dixon is very generously renumerated by regional standards for CEO's.
When divisions of your business are being closed because they are 20% more expensive than comparable operations overseas I think it only appropriate that all levels of the business are so compared.
Not to do so opens the door for us and them arguments and certainly the increasing anger within Qantas ranks that its one rule for management and a totally different one for workers.
If it is acceptable to pay the CEO of Singapore airlines in the range of $1M per annum I seek justification as to why Qantas would pay $6.5M per annum??
1st- Is it in line with performance. Debatable. Airlines are lousy investments. Qantas is profitable and still solvent so he gets a tick.
2nd-Is his pay in proximity of his peers. Crikey.com ran a story many weeks ago comparing Mr Dixons renumeration with that of Emirates, Cathay and Singapores CEO's. Now Im not going to get into a conversion for exchange rates and living expenses type debate. However most of these Asian/ Middle Eastern CEO's were earning in the $1M to $2M per annum range, forgetting about exchange / conversion arguments.
I would submit that even with conversions taken into account Mr Dixon is very generously renumerated by regional standards for CEO's.
When divisions of your business are being closed because they are 20% more expensive than comparable operations overseas I think it only appropriate that all levels of the business are so compared.
Not to do so opens the door for us and them arguments and certainly the increasing anger within Qantas ranks that its one rule for management and a totally different one for workers.
If it is acceptable to pay the CEO of Singapore airlines in the range of $1M per annum I seek justification as to why Qantas would pay $6.5M per annum??
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Where I'm not alarmed
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hellllloooooo
Originally posted by qfcainer
.....david cox tells us 'i wouldn't do his job for all the money in the world, the responsibility of the position just isnt worth the money'
.....david cox tells us 'i wouldn't do his job for all the money in the world, the responsibility of the position just isnt worth the money'