Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas Full Page Add To Say Sorry  
User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 548 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 23839 times:

Good Evening A netters, did anyone see the full page add Qantas took out in the hearldsun this morning and I suspect all the other major capital city news papers. Saying they are sorry for the inconveince to passengers because of delayed or canceled flights. Qantas said what the unions are doing and how "we cant give in to Union demands that risk the future of Qantas" This situation along with death threats reported last week has taken a turn for the worst. Also in the add Qantas said "the last major union action against Qantas cost $130 million" and they also said in the add "3 major unions are working together in a concerted campaign against Qantas" . My question is can any middle ground or comprimise be found or who will cave in first? I supose Qantas management have not helped the situation by awarding themselfs a nice big pay packet and at the same time wanting to shed 1000 jobs send planes off shore and hire Asian based crews. What are your thoughts and what would you do in this situation or what sort of a comprimise would you suggest to make all parties happy?

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3068 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 23693 times:

It's a difficult situation with no easy answer, but I hope they find one soon.

But, the ad itself is quite a good way to get the public on Qantas' side. They seem to take the blame by saying sorry, but what it tells the consumer is that "QF wants to serve them, but they simply can't, due to the evil unions."

With QF financial situation, I can't see how they can meet the demands of the unions, and really, the bonus given to management are small compared to the costs of the demands, but it was still an incredibly stupid move, on a PR-basis to give those bonuses.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 23688 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

They also took a full page advertisement in The West Australian today, and I would assume that they have a full page advertisement in every major Australian newspaper. While I don't quite know the full details of the dispute (nor do I want to get involved), to me it does sound a bit like a childish tit-for-tat going on between the unions and Qantas - one group wanting equal pay between QF international pilots and JQ / Jetconnect domestic pilots, among other things (which QF says will make the low-cost JQ business model unworkable), while QF are fighting to keep their business afloat, which is their duty. If negotiations are at a stand-still, why not resolve this matter through arbitration instead?

One a.netter on another thread recently quoted John Leahy as saying that "some people like to negotiate through the press" in reference to Akbar Al-Baker. It seems to me that this is precisely what QF are doing. I fail to see why QF are doing that, because as far as the general flying public is concerned, all they want is to get what they paid for - namely, to get to their destination safely and punctually. Any dispute between the company and workers' unions should be private, not public. If the war between Qantas and the unions wasn't on before, the gloves are definitely off now.

[Edited 2011-10-10 02:02:32]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 23531 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2):
it does sound a bit like a childish tit-for-tat going on between the unions and Qantas

Seems that way. But then it has seemed that way for some years. Was under Dixon and Joyce was plus ca change plus ca meme chose.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2):
another thread recently quoted John Leahy as saying that "some people like to negotiate through the press" in reference to Akbar Al-Baker. It seems to me that this is precisely what QF are doing. I fail to see why QF are doing that - because as far as the general flying public is concerned, all they want is to get what they paid for - namely, to get to their destination safely and punctually. Any dispute between the company and workers' unions should be private, not public.

MM L is not near a stupid as many would like to suppose. Hence my initials for him, the Much Maligned Leahy. Wish he was running QF. We might have more A380s for a start!!

Joking aside, she who must be obeyed is hoping to make an international flight home this week and she is just about past herself with worrying as it is a 4 to 5 hour drive to the airport from where she will fly. Luckily, once the outbound flight has left, matters are pretty settled, and there is time for her to leave after the departure is established. Trouble is I know that, but I am not sure she accepts that it will be so.


User currently offlineTruemanQLD From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 1546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 23458 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2):
I fail to see why QF are doing that - because as far as the general flying public is concerned, all they want is to get what they paid for - namely, to get to their destination safely and punctually. Any dispute between the company and workers' unions should be private, not public. If the war between Qantas and the unions wasn't on before, the gloves are definitely off now.

QF definitely didnt start the public arguement. It was started by the unions. The unions have been using the media to make QF look like the evil airline for too long, and I personally think action should be taken by FairWork Australia. These Unions are not in it for their workers, they are in it for themselves and their own grudge against QF.

For example, calling off two strikes in a row just before hand, by the time QF has rearranged everything to fit around this. So when the strike is called off, and made very public, people are left going 'well why is my flight delayed/cancelled if there is no strike?' - obviously everyone on A.net knows why, but the general public dont and it makes QF look worse. Also, on the radio today heard an interview with a union representative who said (and I quote... or close to it) - "If I were the general public I would not be booking a ticket on QF because this strike action will continue for a long time, I would be looking at alternative airlines". Now if that isnt evidence that the Unions are in it for their own personal grudge against QF, then I dont know what is.

On a positive side for QF though, they do have the majority of the public support (as indicated by a ninemsn news poll recently - while not 100% accurate, does show general idea), and I think the Unions realise this. The unions are not helping their workers by these twice-weekly threatened strikes and it will only cause QF to shift more jobs overseas. I say, these unions need to be scrapped ASAP and replaced by a sensible body, not one that gives in to QF demands, but understands that QF is a business and shouldnt be held over a barrel for not accepting crazy demands by the unions.

  


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 23359 times:

Quoting TruemanQLD (Reply 4):
that QF is a business and shouldnt be held over a barrel for not accepting crazy demands

I will keep that phrase. Cuts both ways as the man said giving his son a two edged sword.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 23189 times:

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Thread starter):
My question is can any middle ground or comprimise be found or who will cave in first?

There is always a middle ground I think. It's hard to consider the entire situation as an outsider, but industrial action happens every few years somewhere in this industry and everything settles down eventually and the airline keeps on chugging and everyone is reasonably happy. I wonder if negotiations are viable now though considering how hostile this has become...

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Thread starter):
I supose Qantas management have not helped the situation by awarding themselfs a nice big pay packet and at the same time wanting to shed 1000 jobs send planes off shore and hire Asian based crews.

Management have one job -- to make money. People forget that management is not the top of the food chain -- everything they do is supervised and authorised by the Board of Directors. QF management did not make the decision to cut 1000 jobs, the board did. Management doesn't just decide to send a limited few jobs offshore, the board does. Management does not pay themselves, the board does (and can we please drop this stupid argument, it is irrelevant, just slightly unfortunate timing). Management is paid to find ways to increase the profitability of the group, and that is what they do, with final authorisation for what they want to do coming from the board in many cases.

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Thread starter):
What are your thoughts and what would you do in this situation or what sort of a comprimise would you suggest to make all parties happy?

It's hard to say from an outside perspective. Remember this is three separate unions making different demands for different parts of the business -- personally I think QF should guarantee existing jobs in Australia then focus on their expansion in Asia. In the long run, as existing positions become vacated (people moving jobs, retiring etc), their cost base will reduce and hence their profitability should rise. $130m (supposedly) so far -- not sure they can afford to take this much longer... That's a third of their annual profit for last year...


User currently offlineFlyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 23108 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 6):
Management have one job -- to make money. People forget that management is not the top of the food chain --

You are right there qf002 I should have put The Board and not Managemt my mistake.


User currently offlineAusA380 From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 22990 times:

I think there are some other underlying themes that are not that well understood.

Under Dixon he was regularly "crying poor" leading to poor relationship with the employees and then delivering some of the bigger profits in the airline industry at the time.

Under Dixon there was a plan to privatise the airline (which fortunately failed by a very small percentage as when the GFC hit the privatise QF may have had significant financial difficulties), and would have provide significant personal benefits to the senior executives.

The Board appointed Leigh Clifford, a highly regarded company director, however knowing that he has strong view on unions and company relations with them.

Unfortunately Joyce appears to be following in the same hold as Dixon, except that from my perspective he does not appear to have a clear strategy on many fronts. e.g., the Qantas Asia + concept is an interesting one, but has been announced without any details - it would appear that when announced it was half developed. Although the Jetstar Japan launch was brought forward by a week or so and with it the Qantas Asia + concept, by now the details should be finalised.

What I also find interesting is other A380 airlines are adding to their fleet, QF did add orders but is not reducing them, and indication that their strategies have not been working and there doesn't seem to be one working forward.

The strategy seems solely to rely on employee cost containment and JetStar. The announce Qantas Asia+ to me is an announcement - it may or may not happen. If it does it reflects the fact that QF has lost the Australian market outside of SYD/MEL.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 6):
People forget that management is not the top of the food chain -- everything they do is supervised and authorised by the Board of Directors. QF management did not make the decision to cut 1000 jobs, the board did.

Technically this is correct, however the strategies the board approve are usually prepared by Management (with different levels of Board input), so whilst the board does approve, management have their "fingers in and all over this".

Quoting qf002 (Reply 6):
Management have one job -- to make money.

Actually that is not correct, Management have the job of implementing the strategy that has been agreed with the Board. Management also have a responsibility to ensure that company is complying with laws etc etc.

In "making money" an organisation needs productive inputs, and in the airline industry a large part of that input comes from their employees. Therefore, one of their many jobs (not just one) is to have an effective relationship with their employees to maximise their input. It seems to me the approach of the QF management over many years has been around employee relationship destruction, which will help destroy profitability and ultimately the business.

The tactics employed by both sides of this dispute appear to ensure the employer/employee trust will be increasingly negatively affected. What is worse is that Management appear to have lost the high morale ground in this dispute.

[Note: my comments are from outside the QF group and the industry - I have no inside information or knowledge and am just an observer. I have experience in Senior Exec and Director roles.]


User currently offlineAusA380 From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 22908 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Management does not pay themselves, the board does (and can we please drop this stupid argument, it is irrelevant, just slightly unfortunate timing). Management is paid to find ways to increase the profitability of the group, and that is what they do, with final authorisation for what they want to do coming from the board in many cases.

Sorry, should have added this in my earlier comment.

I think the view "it is irrelevant, just slightly unfortunately timing" is perhaps an indication of the misunderstanding of the impact on executive salaries in the economy now. The debate has been growing and will continue over the next many years, so I would not say it is irrelevant in the context of this situation.

An article in the SMH today does to some of the debate going on in this regard.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/execu...market-failure-20111010-1lh2o.html

Going back to the commentary that AJ has been putting out today that he is not the highest paid employee (by the hour) and that the A380 pilots are, well he is the highest paid employee and I am sure that none of his training would have brought the A380 back to SIN.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4920 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 22734 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 1):
due to the evil unions."

Pretty strong words being used to describe the Union which are simply fighting for Australian workers to have one thing job security and a decent pay increase and before anyone decides to jump on the band wagon just remember the workforce agreed to not receive a pay increase during the Asian economic downturn while management you guessed got a pay increase...
Evil... give me a break...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 22402 times:

Quoting AusA380 (Reply 8):
Actually that is not correct, Management have the job of implementing the strategy that has been agreed with the Board. Management also have a responsibility to ensure that company is complying with laws etc etc.

Why do they implement those strategies? Why do they comply with the legislation that relates to them? They do it so they can make money... Sure their role goes beyond just setting fare levels and choosing where to fly, but ultimately everything they do is with the goal of ending up with a profit at the end of the day.

Quoting AusA380 (Reply 9):
I think the view "it is irrelevant, just slightly unfortunately timing" is perhaps an indication of the misunderstanding of the impact on executive salaries in the economy now. The debate has been growing and will continue over the next many years, so I would not say it is irrelevant in the context of this situation.

Think you've got that quote attributed to the wrong user   In my view the salary of high level employees is a different matter to the salary/conditions of lower level employees, and I don't think that the two can be compared. I agree that this is an important debate to have, I just don't think it's relevant to the union situation here.

Quoting AusA380 (Reply 9):
Going back to the commentary that AJ has been putting out today that he is not the highest paid employee (by the hour) and that the A380 pilots are, well he is the highest paid employee and I am sure that none of his training would have brought the A380 back to SIN.

I agree that a pile of bs by AJ. Though if you go by the recent 'How Close was the QF A380 to crashing?' thread then a toddler could have landed that A380 it was so unscathed  In all seriousness though, I just don't get how the executive salary debate relates to the union one -- I think they are separate issues and hence my comment.


User currently offlineozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2721 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 21435 times:

Voice of the customer:

As a QF customer for over 40 years, Platinum member for 10 years, and traveling on a QF ticket tomorrow morning, let me share a few thoughts on current CEO and management:

1. QF's DNA is as a Full Service airline for more than 90 years
2. Alan Joyce' DNA is that of Ryanair
3. This is a poisonous cocktail
4. My QF flight from HBA to MEL tomorrow is in fact a JQ flight with all the horror of Ryanair associated
5. This would seem the future of QF under this little man
6. Somebody stop him!



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 21186 times:

Quoting AusA380 (Reply 9):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):
Management does not pay themselves, the board does (and can we please drop this stupid argument, it is irrelevant, just slightly unfortunate timing). Management is paid to find ways to increase the profitability of the group, and that is what they do, with final authorisation for what they want to do coming from the board in many cases.

Sorry, should have added this in my earlier comment.

I think the view "it is irrelevant, just slightly unfortunately timing" is perhaps an indication of the misunderstanding of the impact on executive salaries in the economy now. The debate has been growing and will continue over the next many years, so I would not say it is irrelevant in the context of this situation.

Whoa there that was qf002. AusA380, I thought your reply was an excellent summary. And as for this argument:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 6):
Management doesn't just decide to send a limited few jobs offshore, the board does. Management does not pay themselves, the board does (and can we please drop this stupid argument, it is irrelevant, just slightly unfortunate timing).

get back to us after you see how the next votes on the remuneration reports go. Then we can see if we need to drop this stupid argument and whether it is irrelevant. I will agree the timing was unfortunate, not "just slightly" however.

That new little law under the totally inactive Gillard government is going to set the dove cotes afluttering. Historically it would have meant we would have got rid of Trujillo at least a year earlier, and it might yet bite Mr J in the posterior.

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 12):
6. Somebody stop him!

Now don't hold back, tell us how you really feel ozg!!!

[Edited 2011-10-10 06:27:07]

User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3068 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 20906 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 10):
Pretty strong words being used to describe the Union

I am in no way saying that the Unions are evil. But I'm saying that what the ad does for the public, is set the blame for their canceled flights on the unions, not Qantas.

By Qantas seemingly taking the blame, by saying sorry, they are portraying themselves as a victim, just like the public, and that the problem is out of their control. The only ones that can fix it is the unions, who are creating the problem.

To reiterate, the above is not my view at all, but it is what the ad in the papers is conveying.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineQuokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 20093 times:

Oh if only Mr Joyce had the options available to the military in Fiji. There a pilot and trade union official has been arrested, allegedly for being in unlawful access of some documents.

QF, despite owning a little less than 50% of the airline and having two directors on the board, is spouting the usual "it's nothing to do with us" routine. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-1...ji-strains-union-relations/3459764 for more details.

Perhaps that could be QF's next full page advertising campaign: "The Spirit of Australia: It's nothing to do with us"


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 20027 times:

Quoting Quokka (Reply 15):
Oh if only Mr Joyce had the options available to the military in Fiji. There a pilot and trade union official has been arrested, allegedly for being in unlawful access of some documents.
Quoting Quokka (Reply 15):

Perhaps that could be QF's next full page advertising campaign: "The Spirit of Australia: It's nothing to do with us"

Would you have them include the "Adventures in Vietnam" episode or do that separately?


User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3205 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 19708 times:

IMHO, pay disparities between workers within large organisations (worldwide) are going to cause an increasing amount of union action and civil unrest. QF has to be careful to measure the mood of society well when placing mainstream ads like this; this Saturday, the 15th of October could see an unprecedented example of this with demonstrations planned globally and, most importantly, including the middle classes in the western world.

Regards
MH



come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 19497 times:

To Quokka's article add this from Ian Verrender financial section in the SMH.
Despite the titanic quest to trim costs, Alan Joyce and most of his senior team members were awarded major lifts in salary. Odd timing to say the least. That's forced Joyce on the defensive. The company spin now is that his pay is 10 per cent less than the average paid at the ASX Top 50 companies. That's all well and good. But Qantas isn't in the top 50. It's ranked number 60.

The other line is that his salary jump, from $2.92 million last year to $5 million this year, is skewed because a large part of that rise was in share options, and that, unless he performs, he may not receive those shares. This is also disingenuous. Those share options are, in fact, deferred bonus payments from previous years.

Half of them were vested in August, so Joyce already would have received them. The other half are priced so that he is almost guaranteed to receive them, leaving him far from being underpaid.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/wider...-20111010-1lhkt.html#ixzz1aOAKQIU7
And before that a hardly complimentary analysis of the QF business plan.

The unions might not have too many friends, but they might outnumber those of the QF management and board??


User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 18873 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2):
Any dispute between the company and workers' unions should be private, not public.

I agree. We don't want to see people's dirty washing.

Surely the diplomatic and adult thing to do is conduct their business behind closed doors. How would Qantas feel if the unions came out with stories about the way the airline encourages staff to behave in certain ways?

No company is an angel and no union is an angel. Let's not start throwing shite at each other. It looks unprofessional.


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 18233 times:

Quoting AusA380 (Reply 8):
The strategy seems solely to rely on employee cost containment and JetStar. The announce Qantas Asia+ to me is an announcement - it may or may not happen. If it does it reflects the fact that QF has lost the Australian market outside of SYD/MEL.

AustA380 not quite so fast. I agree with what on the outset might look like they've got no strategy. But I think if you did a little deeper then you might find the evidence points elsewhere. I'm talking about the Boeing 787. You see, from my observations it looks like those 787s are going to RedQ. (QantasAsia or whatever it finally ends up being called). They just can't make that public yet, because of the campaign going on with the various unions, it would inflame the situation to a level they don't need. Now its just 'a few to jetstar then a few to QF to replace 767s type talk. (and allow A330-200s to return to QF - hence not really much of an expansion of jetstar long haul) Well if you have a look at the design of the 787-800, that would seem a waste of a very new, and expensive aircraft. Boeing's design mission for the 787-800 is to have a slightly larger than 767 aircraft. (about 767-400 size) yet have a range that exceeds the 747-400 and operating costs on a per seat basis that should come in similar to a 747-400. (a 767-300 on a long haul flight is gonna cost you about 20% more per seat, a 777-200 is about a 10% per seat saving on the 747-400 and its only when you get to the 777-300LR you start to break that point). This aircraft was clearly designed to attempt to make 'longer and thin' routes economically viable.

So for me, given the volume of 787s they have on order, and given ex australia they can't deploy them to South America (ETOPS restrictions will prevent it flying over the south pole, no diversion airports) These aircraft can only be used non-stop from Australia to North America, and to Asia. North America would possibly bring back San Fran, and maybe Vancouver but that's basically it because everything else needs to go to a hub and if you can use the larger 380 your costs are going to be lower (assuming you fill them... hence why hubs are attractive). That means sending them to Asia. Soooo... if we're going to send them to Asia, and we are now going to have a 'hub' in asia that will have nice new A320s with a premium configuration... it would make sense to base part of that 787 fleet at the same hub. Lets say they secure the old bangkok airport Don Muang as there hub (nice big airport, not doing much, already can accommodate 80 widebody positions and nice and central in Asia). Passengers flying in from Hong Kong, Jakarta, Manila, Shanghai, Siagon, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore on A320s (say half is local asian traffic and half ready to connect) can then join 787 passengers from Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne Auckland Christchurch and maybe even Darwin and Tokyo as well as probably A380 passengers from Sydney, and then continue on to Rome, Paris, Manchester and Berlin. And it won't be that high risk because the 787-800 isn't that big. It's smaller than the A330-300. In a 3 class long haul configuration you're probably only talking 210-215 passengers (business, premium econ and econ). I can then feed this hub from various Jetstar leisure focused cities too like The Gold Coast and Cairns. It also lets me then send some of those A320s to India after they're finished dropping all the south east asian traffic off but before the 787s have returned from europe and maybe even south africa. If this works, this can then tie in with Jetstar by using jetstar asian based 787s to fly to places like Glasgow, Birmingham, Prague and Athens that are unlikely to demand as much premium traffic and are more price sensitive. .... So I'm pretty sure if I can see all of this purely from the actions to date... that a few people at mascot would have thought of this too. But can you image the ire of a few unions if this was released just now? Particularly the Engineers Union? Or what about the TWU (baggage handlers) When emirates are paying unskilled ground staff that work in places like baggage handling and catering literally $2.5 USD an hr. QF could be tapping into that. But perhaps more importantly it would allow it to have feed from other parts of asia. Something QF mainline can't do under today's trade bilaterals. Something only possible with join asian ownership.

No I very much think they've came up with a strategy. They're just keeping it to themselves for the time being. QF mainline will continue long haul after some revamps. it will probably just serve London, and then business heavy markets that are non-stop from Australia like Los Angeles and Hong Kong. Places they don't have to compete with Emirates. The rest will all go through this new hub, largely on 787s. And Qantas unions won't have a place in those cockpits, thus no membership fees or power to strike. (pilots will need to be paid global levels so they should do well, similar to cathay or emirates and they'll enjoy a much lower tax rate, just no ability to strike. Likewise i'd expect at lease a percentage of Australian FA's to be employed to make aussies feel more 'at home'...the way EK does, but definately not all because they're gonna wanna get their costs down).


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 17541 times:

Quoting ozglobal (Reply 12):
2. Alan Joyce' DNA is that of Ryanair

It was actually Aer Lingus not that its much better.


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3264 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15167 times:

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Thread starter):
and I suspect all the other major capital city news papers.

Did not find anything in the UK but went to Qantas website and found info in the "about Qantas" section.
Can't see a winner in this conflict.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12494 times:

QF and AA make good partners it seems, as both are inept at labor management.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2179 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 11864 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 1):
I can't see how they can meet the demands of the unions, and really, the bonus given to management are small compared to the costs of the demands

Before I get tempted to think differently here, so that we can compare and talk with numbers instead of speculation... how much are these bonuses?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
The unions might not have too many friends, but they might outnumber those of the QF management and board??

That's a given, because 1. the management will always try to exaggerate the actual demands of the unions in what they communicate to the media and what they want the general public to perceive, and because 2. unions cannot just ask for what they actually want, but they need to ask for more given that's it's negotiation tactics and that they will never obtain all what they request...
Yes indeed unions don't have too many friends, ask the folks working in or for the QF group but not under QF contracts! Unions are kind of selfish for their members, and don't really care about others who do the exact same job at a different company. That's what screws up the union system imho, at least in N Am (I'm not familiar with Australia, but I'm under the impression that it works very similarly).



When I doubt... go running!
25 ABpositive : What's becoming a common theme in many large corporations, executives are being paid increasing more per hour each year while the pay for operational
26 RyanairGuru : Interesting. Very interesting. Everything you say makes sense, so I guess I'll pull up a deck chair and wait and see!!!
27 Lufthansa : Paying dividends is a largely Australian concept. In most countries, including the united states, it is considered the 'last option'. It's something
28 ozglobal : Yes, two carriers I would choose not to fly. Ryanair in Europe is the most hated of all carriers... I do however admit that I like your proposed QF G
29 Baroque : I think you might need a course in Australian Company Taxation and Dividend Imputation 101 before going much further my friend. Not paying dividends
30 Lufthansa : I didn't bother explain what fully franking is because its going into finance in too much detail for an aviation site and thus the tax advantage for
31 fiscal : That is not entirely true, and to appreciate some of the current issues, you have to understand the internal politics of a union today, especially th
32 Post contains images Baroque : Alas there are some in Australia who do similar. But Imputation is a brilliant way of achieving a disparate set of aims. As you say, perhaps a non av
33 qf002 : The problem as I see it with groups like Unions and your Greens example is that they are based on a foundation that stemmed from a society where the
34 VH-BZF : I think you have it round the wrong way - QF staff have not had pay freezes, management did according to the news reports I read and the interviews o
35 shamrock604 : When AJ was there.. it was much better than Ryanair. And it still is if you knew anything about the internal workings of both companies.
36 Post contains links AusA380 : Interesting interview on ABC 702 with Adam Spencer this morning and Ben Sandilands well known aviation commentator with some interesting comments. As
37 koruman : I am a Qantas customer who has been inconvenienced by all of this. And I did not take the Qantas ads as a "sorry" statement to me. It looked to my lik
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Qantas 747 Towed Over To Southside LAX posted Fri May 2 2008 10:35:29 by Access-Air
PrivatAir Add To Boeing 787 Order posted Thu Jan 17 2008 01:52:23 by PanAm_DC10
Care To Say What My Chances Are? posted Sun Dec 16 2007 11:54:19 by SILVERSTREAK
BA Cityflyer ADD To Fleet posted Sun Oct 21 2007 17:54:26 by BAOPS777
Qantas Spending AUD$50m To Fix Perth Airport posted Wed Aug 22 2007 08:01:24 by Pilotdude09
MCO-SWF On B6 7-13: Have To Say I'm Impressed! posted Sat Jul 14 2007 06:16:46 by Falcon84
Austrian Fan, Prepare To Say Goodbye To The A330! posted Mon May 7 2007 15:43:59 by CV990
Will Qantas Ever Start Flying To Taiwan? posted Tue Apr 17 2007 15:47:54 by Qantasairways
Lcal Add To Boeing 787 Order posted Thu Mar 29 2007 11:21:42 by PanAm_DC10
Midwest Urges Shareholders To Say NO! posted Thu Jan 25 2007 14:07:56 by N917ME