Virgin Australia did its bit today to make news by adding to leadership tensions at Qantas.
Virgin Australia’s CEO and ex Qantas senior executive John Borghetti delivered astonishing first half year results, in which the smaller airline made more by way of statutory net profits after tax of $51.8 million than the entire Qantas group, which made only $42 million by the same measure in its results to 31 December as announced a week ago today.
Its tiny international operation made $35 million EBIT, compared to claims by Qantas CEO Alan Joyce that his group’s far larger Qantas long haul operation continues to lose more than $200 million a year, and unlike Qantas, Virgin Australia’s loyalty scheme earnings contributed comparatively little to the overall result, which was based overwhelmingly on profitably flying people rather than selling halo points to third parties like grocery chains or hotels.
If that wasn’t bad enough for Qantas, Borghetti also announced a plan to split the company into a domestic Virgin Australia Holdings company and a new unlisted Virgin Australian International Holdings unit with a view to greatly increasing investment in the domestic operations where both Qantas/Jetstar and its major competitor make most of their money.
The complex split plan, in which existing shareholders are given shares in the new unlisted international company by way of an in specie dividend, has a rather simple but unstated objective, which is to facilitate any desire by Etihad Airways or other interested foreign airline or institutional investor to buy their way into the share register as significant and rich equity partners who will help fund a major assault on the Qantas Cityflyer domestic trunk routes as well as grow the connecting traffic Virgin Australia is bringing to Etihad’s hub at Abu Dhabi.
This will require FIRB approval, and it might well be fought tooth and nail by Qantas, but it potentially allows an already profitable challenger airline group to fund ambitious expansion plans.
For Qantas, the pressure points are obvious. Joyce is being outflanked where it hurts, and has a poorly articulated Asia savior plan for a part owned premium carrier that is somehow going to fund the recapitalization of a shrinking and loss making long haul Qantas operation with profits from a venture that will be substantially owned by Jetstar’s most potent Asian competitor, Air Asia and based in Kuala Lumpur, a centre from which it will compete with the existing Qantas investment in Singapore as a combined Qantas/Jetstar hub.
Investor doubts about the rationality and practicability of the Joyce plan, in its various iterations, and their inherent absurdities and conflicts are growing by the day, including the Qantas CEO’s guidance a week ago today that he now wanted it to be ‘capital light ’ with a fleet that Qantas paid for in the smallest possible measure.
The ‘hello Asia, we want a free ride to take your business away’ message is not going down well, either in Asia, or in Australia.
Borghetti said Virgin Australia was committed to keeping up the competitive pressure on Qantas domestic business class and full fare services with a growing investment in Australian based jobs, including lifting its heavy maintenance work to more than 50% based in Australia rather than offshore.
He said there would be more and better lounges, more pride in its Australian identity, more involvement with its Australian employees, and better, newer, more efficient jets than Qantas could afford.
“We have forced business friendly fares down to the levels of 1996 on many routes in as little as a few months,” he said, which of course coincided with the period in which the Qantas industrial disputes and its locking out of its own customers caused major inconvenience and brand damage to the flying kangaroo.
Borghetti said the ‘Game Change’ program that had been expected to kick in during the second half of the financial year had produced results ahead of schedule.
He emphasised that Virgin Australia had not been in any discussions with Etihad Airways concerning its plans to split the group into domestic and international components that would have different shareholders, but that it had for some months been working with financial advisers on ways in which it could increase institutional investment in its major domestic business without breaching the foreign shareholder cap of 49% which was a condition for retaining its status as an Australian flag carrier in terms of securing and retaining overseas traffic rights.
In the wider perspective the differences in leadership at Qantas and Virgin Australia are becoming increasingly obvious. Virgin Australia has a work force in which many would be prepared to die in a ditch for the company, while Qantas appears to want many of its legacy work force to, if not die in a ditch, go away and allow it to replace them with younger, cheaper and less skilled pilots, several of which clearly should never, ever have been employed to sit in the right hand seat of Jetstar A320s given recent safety scares.
This is not to agree with some of the views pushed by protectionist or change resistant Qantas employees, but a criticism of the hostile attitude of management to labor in the Qantas group, and the lack of staff engagement that this causes, compared to the much stronger sense of joint purpose that has characterised Virgin Australia and its Virgin Blue predecessor from day one.
The Virgin story in Australia isn’t one of unalloyed management-labor harmony and bliss, but its has been, comparatively speaking, far more constructive and effective, and it shows very favorably in its service delivery and commitment to being Australian, or if you wish, true blue.
It’s a difference which is a potent factor, as acknowledged by Borghetti today, in a profit result which hasn’t slayed a giant, but has kicked it hard in the … shins.
An earlier similar report appeared in the Crikey Daily Mail.
33 Comments
Ben, it is great result for Virgin and Borghetti knows what he is doing, He has made all the right moves so far and QF’s industrial woes gave them an extra free kick.
I might add that most of the uncertainty regarding Qantas and which gave rise to where many Qantas customers sampled Virgin was in the long period prior to the grounding (the grounding was only a short time in duration and impacted realtively few people in real terms). It was precisely for this reason that Joyce brought the matter to a halt. He literally had to; grounding was a very brave decision and history will show that it wa indeed the right decision.
The uncertainty about Qantas in the leadup to the grounding was created by stoppages or threatened stoppages and cancelled stoppages and pilot’s infight pa’s (the pilot’s pa’s BTW bugged the hell out of most passengers) that were totally predicated on touching the xenophobia nerves of Australians where “all pilots other than Australian pilots were incompetants and unsafe (the nerve to exhibit such an opinion) and the engineer’s PR campaign that was aimed at damaging the airline’s brand as much as possible by basically saying Qantas was cutting corners on its maintenance and sending it all offshore to be done by incompetents (likewise trying to touch the xenophobic nerve in Australia) and moreover the fact that the Qantas engineers worked to rules (particularly no overtime) that slowly but progressively over months led to a significant portion of Qantas’ fleet being grounded through accumulated defects that were not getting fixed because the enginerrs were working to rules. Qantas was dying a death by a thousand cuts and having its operations massively disrupted (cancelled and delayed flights) at the hands of its employees who did not give a stuff that they were doing irreparable damage to the company that employed them.
BTW, I have always found it strange (in fact it has amazed me) that some of Qantas most highly paid staff [like their Ansett predecessors] (its pilots, its cabin crew, its engineers and its airport staff) do not draw the connection between the very good lifestyle that they lead by being a Qantas employee and the health and well being and service delivery and public perception of the company that employs them. If Qantas loses customers (often because of the actions of its employees), it will ultimately shed staff and employeee job security (which is never guaranteed in any company) is greatly imperilled. The actions by the engineers and pilots to deliberately mislead the public and create fear and intentionally damage the Qantas brand in their endeavours to forever enshrine inflexible work practices and and low productivity and increase the cost of Qantas LCC Jetstar are despicable.
What is more, Virgin already has much more flexible work practices and lower salary rates with its pilots and its flight attendants and engineers and ground staff (on par with Jetstar), but it is not facing the challenges that Qantas is facing in endeavouring to get its employees to “get real” and make the company competitive at least on a cost basis. The inflexible work practices of pilots and flight attendants (just the bidding system alone) and the work practices and demarkations and other feather-bedding of its engineers and ground staff give rise to massive hidden costs that come from operational inflexibility and manpower inflexibility, duplication of resources and sub-optimal facilities (such as over-engineered multiple engineering facilities).
The pilots in particular want to kill Jetstar or bring its cost up to Qantas levels which will kill it anyway.
And all of this in addition to the fact that Qantas, unlike its major international airline competitors of the ME and Asia does not have the benefits of a geographical hub which can provide access to large multiple markets to feed and assist its international operations. Nor does it have the ability to depreciate its fleet assets at the same rate as ME and Asian carriers and that impacts the financial viability of early aircraft retirements and fleet age and so it goes on.
Virgin is operating in the same environment as Qanta but it does not have the industrial legacies of Qantas not does it have the same financial exposure as Qantas to its international operations and Borghetti has done a fabulous job of turning around the small international operations it has by pulling out of loss making routes and rationalsing the balance of its operations with alliances and code share with Air New Zealand, Etihad and Delta.
The executive management at Qantas I believe know what needs to be done and they also know that they do not have a silver bullet to combat the inroads of the ME and Asian hub carriers. What I think Joyce is trying to do is get Qantas International cost in order (this has already happened to a large extent with its domestic operations although they still have the legacy of the old 767s and infexible work parctices of Flight attendants compared to Virgin and Jetstar) and position Qantas not only in Australia but also through Jetstar (and the Asian carrier that I do not think will happen) in the bigger Asian markets and also be geographically located to establish a hub and spoke operation that feeds from and distributes to multiple markets.
Ben, I think that you know all this but you seem determined to not cut Joyce any slack and in fact go out of your way to demean his efforts, just as you did te efforts of Dixon before him. I am mystified why because I know you know better.
Bottom line is that Qantas (and its staff) must reform itself and people (mainly politicians who just do not understand) must not stand in the way of establishing and maintaining a low cost brand in markets outside of Australia. Nobody would think about criticising BHP for establishing its operations in countries outside of Australia, but for some misguided reason, for Qantas to endeavour do so is deemed to be anti-patriotic and un-Australian, which is an opinion formed largely by (ie. sucked in by) by the vested interests and rhetoric of Qantas pilots, engineers and militant unions.
I want Qanta to succeed because it is a great Australian company and one we should be proud of. It will not be easy as it faces many significant challenges and accordingly some difficult decisions will have to be made along the way
Right man for the job, pity the company he was loyal to for most of his career did not have the same loyalty and let him go.
Ben,
One of the problems I have with journalism today is the unquestioning acceptance of conveniently cut and pasted press releases.
For example, not a single reporter, including to my later embarrassment myself, questioned the need for Qantas to suddenly ground its fleet and illegally sell tickets to persons for services it knew it could not provide when it fact it could have achieved precisely the same outcome by informing FWA that it would put the carrier on the ground unless it received the relief of a suspension of the protected industrial actions. Such a declaration was all that was required to trigger FWA intervention.
The fact is Joyce was determined to do it the most confrontational way possible, when he could have achieved the same result with far less cost to the public and the shareholders. Around $90 million less cost. The damage to the brand would have been less, but I have come to the view that the conduct of this dispute was more driven by ideology than customer and shareholder interests.
These issues were discussed at length, but amid much interruption, at the last Senate hearing of the last year attended by Joyce, during which I realised how badly I had dropped the ball.
If you care about Qantas, and I believe you do, carefully ask yourself if compliant regurgitation of company statements is actually of benefit to Qantas and its brand, compared to the consideration of contrary voices, whether mistaken voices or not.
Companies, and governments, tend to behave as though they own the ‘reality’. When the media plays along with this the value of media itself is compromised. And when reporters, like myself, fail to ask the hard questions, as I did on that occasion, I realise to my chagrin that I had become part of the problem rather than the solution.
We all need to ask the hard questions, even if we don’t have the answers.
By asking whether the Asia plans iterated by Joyce are the correct answer or strategy for leveraging opportunities in Asia, we are facilitating a worthwhile debate. It’s not whether Qantas should involve itself more in Asia, but how? As I hope you have realised from earlier posts, I think Jetstar Japan is a good idea, although I realise there is a certain tension between the partners and a strong desire by Qantas for an additional cornerstone investor.
For my part, I think the Joyce plan(s) in relation to an Asia premium brand are flawed. The Asian solution will not be found in the wrong city and in association with a competitor that wants you dead. And if it is to be effective and rewarding it won’t be capital light.
it seems the season for leadership tensions!
Ben Beveridge really does take a lot of space to simply repeat what he has said before. The comment today should have been to give credit to Borghetti for what he is doing at Virgin. The Qantas Board showed very poor judgement in not appointing him CEO instead of Joyce. Borghetti knows how to run a successful airline, unlike Joyce who came with, and still retains, baggage eg Ansett and has a profound weakness in his attitude to and inability to communicate with front line staff and loyal passengers.
JB should never have been let go… he proves that to be profitable you don’t have to screw over your staff and have a management structure based on disengaging your staff to achieve larger pay packets for you and your Ex Ansett Management colleagues.
It would seem the Qantas social media department has arrived at crikey.
Naive gen y children regurgitating the company spin.
It would be even more alarming if Ben Beveridge was a manager. It just shows the quality of the management staff and total disconnection of what an airline actually is, and what management is actually for.
The culture at the top end of Qantas must change or the company will fail.
Congratulations to John and his team.
A gentleman, an ambassador for the virgin brand, and a role model for aviation in Australia.
Ben, I am a Borghetti fan.
If as you say Joyce could have achieved the same result by advising FWA that he was going to ground the airline than actually grounding it, then I agree with you. I think that everyone at Qantas would probably agree with you, including even Joyce.
You state that you are critical of Joyce because he is worthy of criticism and you want a balanced reporting.
Fair enough, it is your right and free speech that is one of the fundamental rights that makes Australia great.
However Ben, I have not seen you critical of the tactics employed by the engineers and pilots and unions like the TWU representing the ground staff where they went out of their way to damage the brand of Qantas in an endeavour to get their way and further enshrine inflexible work practices (practices not prevailing at Virgin or at Qantas’ main international competitors) that make Qantas uncompetitive.
I would like to think that you would agree that Qantas needs to reform itself and that really means that its staff must do so.
I am a very patriotic Australian (we are fortunate to live in what I think is the best address in the world), but the unbelievable racially centred arrogance of the pilots and engineers to basically state that everyone other than an Australian pilot or engineer is an incompetent and infer that they create a danger to aviation is reprihensible to say the least.
Fushunchups, I do not regurgite Qantas company spin.
Unlike yourself it seems, I do know something about the aviation business and I am not employed at Qantas.
You refer to Qantas “company spin” as if it was the opposite of the truth. Whilst Qantas (like other companies and politicians) may try to enhance its point of view; but regrettably much of what it is saying is the truth. Because you and many others who are ill-infomed do not like to hear their position because of your own prejudices or simply having a closed mind, then you simply classify it as Qantas bull…t. I do not work for Qantas, but perhaps you are a Qantas pilot or flight attendant or engineer or are related to one. Perhaps you just don’t like people of Irish origins. Perhaps you do not realise that Qantas is currently facing its biggest challenges of all time. Perhaps you do not care if Qantas shrinks to become an irrelevancy and if many Australians lose their jobs.
Ben [Sandilands.
Haven’t we heard enough from Mr Beveridge for one day?
Patrick Andrew, you certainly seem to have an axe to grind. Are you an ex Qantas employee.
Borghetti did not inherit at Virgin the inflexible work practices and conditions that currently burden Qantas. What Qantas is trying to do is get to where Virgin already is.
If Borghetti was still at Qantas he would be challlenged with doing exactly what Joyce is trying to do.
Ben B points to the hidden costs in some of Qantas’ entrenched work practices. What Ben S has consistently pointed to is the hidden costs of Qantas’ (1) asset purchasing and management decisions and (2) future plans. These are squarely within the control of Qantas management, but yet their staff get the blame for 100% of Qantas’ woes.
Or to put it more simply, productivity includes both labour and capital. Don’t blame labour for poor productivity if the owners of capital make no investment in productivity either.
Offshoring is always related to lowering costs. As the disparity between the highest and lowest paid increases it is the lowest paid who are supposed to have less and be greatful.
Overseas workers are not inferior. The standards they adhere to are. The conditions they are employed under are. People’s lives are at risk if standards are not upheld.
You tell me what Qantas should be doing if you know so much.
What are the alleged asset purchasing poor decisions?
I notice that one of the readers (Itfisher) has such a closed mind that he has requested Ben to shut me down.
Ben Bev…
Come one BenBev, are you serious? …”…unbelievable racially centred arrogance of the pilots and engineers..”
The message from the pilots was “Qantas Pilots in Qantas Aircraft”. I suspect the Pilot and Engineering fraternities are made up of all sorts of backgrounds and races. Your interpretation of it being racially motivated is way off the mark.
The message from the Engineers is that the quality of maintenance being performed overseas is continually below the standard that would be accepted here (think staples to keep wiring together, 5 hour checks being done in 1 hour..etc).
This is about an Australian Iconic Company, with market penetration and brand-recognition that other companies would die for, shooting itself in the foot by choosing a confrontational approach with it’s staff and squandering the unbelievable potential of tapping into an engaged work force.
This is also an ideological battle between short-term incentive driven management who have an agenda we are not privy to and loyal long-term employees who actually want Qantas to be efficient, profitable and around for another 100 years.
Virgin has a leader in charge, Qantas has a mathematician in charge…the numbers don’t lie (or do they?).
Andrew are you telling me that Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific’s and Lufthansa Teknics Asian operation maintenance standards are inferior to Qantas’?
I do not want to see Australian jobs offshored. However there is a reality to what is an optimal operation. Qantas still does the majority of its maintenance onshore. Virgin is looking to bring the percentage of maintenance it does in Oz up to 50% in x years time.
The Qantas engineers were I understand demanding that Qantas invest something like $1 billion in building a huge hangar and associated maintenance infrastructure to service the A380 fleet. The size of this fleet will always be small at Qantas and an A380 heavy maintenance facility could never approach anywhere near an optimal operation. The engineers finally gave in on this demand (it was the major sticking point of their dispute) but only after they had inflicted major damage on Qantas and had to be brought before FWA commissioners to get some sense of reality.
Abagnale, you obviously do not know Borhetti. He is every bit the numbers man. Moreso than Alan.
I like Borghetti and he is making all the right moves, but recognise he has not inherited the legacy practices inherent at Qantas.
I am not stating that the legacy practices are the core of Qantas’ problems. They are but one of many, but they need to be addressed.
Jetstar Australia pilots are technically Qantas pilots in Qantas planes. Simply a subsidiary brand and with different labour contracts. The Qantas pilots want to bring these pilots onto the same pay scale and conditions as themselves. That overnight would make Jetstar uncompetitive with both Virgin and Tiger.
Jetstar Asia is in effect a Qantas subsidiary. It is controlled by Qantas (Jetstar) in Australia. The fact that Qantas is required to not have more than 49.9% of the equity you know well enough is a technical requirement to be able maintain its aviation rights from Singapore and Vietnam and soon Japan. The Vietnam operation in hindsight was a mistake and has given Qantas a lot of heartache. But Qantas cannot get its money out and it may go on to be a viable investment. Very little has been invested in this airline in real terms so commentators should keep it in perspective.
The Asian premium airline was (is) a reasonable idea when it started. Shall we say a valiant attempt. However it will not end up as Qantas originally intended it to be and it is as good as dead.
@ BenB
Andrew are you telling me that Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific’s and Lufthansa Teknics Asian operation maintenance standards are inferior to Qantas’?
No, but I know AirFrance’s off shore maintenance let planes leave with bolts missing.
Ben Beveridge – Bruce Buchanan, BB, just asking
.
Since Qantas are doing most of his work for him he would have the time to do all this typing.
Having Bruce Buchanan’s pay would be good.
Chad, do not believe that QF’s record is perfect here either. I do acknowledge however that Qantas’ standards are very high.
The Bangkok incident some years back when the 747 went off the end of the runway showed that QF pilots not infallible either. I again acknowledge that Qantas’ standard are very high. Many valuable lessons were learned from that incident.
However, some Qantas international pilots are very arrogant and some make racist remarks. For example for years, even senior pilots perpetuated the myth ( I heard it repeated dozens of times) that Boeing had to modify and strengthen the undercarriages of 747s because “Asian” pilots could not flare and land the aircraft properly, especially when there was a cross wind. It was inferred that there was something inherently built into them where they could not handle the aircraft well. Come on, let’s get real.
Qantas pilots I acknowledge are extremely well trained and certified but I would venture to say no better than Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific (or Jetstar).
I feel safe when I fly Qantas and I also know that that safety will never be knowingly compromised.
If Qantas is having heavy maintenance undertaken overseas it can always be under the supervision of Qantas engineers; just as they do in the Boeing and Airbus factory when a Qantas plane is being built
Ben Sandilands wrote:
Even allowing for PR spin by Borghetti, if Virgin achieve half of what they say they plan to do, hats off to them.
As a mere mug punter, I daresay there’s an argument to be had about comparing staff wages and conditions at VA vs Qantas, but in the end if VA does its level best to bring more maint. work here surely that’s a good thing. If they also continue to uphold the peculiar notion that their customers are actually quite important and that it might be a good way of improving customer loyalty if they flew newer, better planes and made the whole @hitfight at airports less tedious, then as far as this mere user is concerned, QF, BA, CX and SQ can stick it.
It’s a shame to see Q go down the toilet the way they are. I’m a pom originally but when I go back to the UK I do smile when I see a Qantas plane coming in or going out at LHR. I know there’s little room for sentimentality in modern airline management (aside from the saccharine drivel their PR depts dish out that always makes me reach), but there comes a point where the costs of that sentiment to us cattle down the back of the plane (discomfort, surly staff, reduced flights) outstrip the want to support a distinctive and established brand.
Olivia Wirth would be so proud of you Ben Beveridge! You sound like the love child of her & Allan Joyce. Only someone from inside Qantas HQ would waste so much time typing line after line like you have.
BTW, I am not working today, nor was I yesterday, so have the time type. Will not hear from me for a while after today. Thank goodness, I hear you say.
Mr Interesting, I understand Qantas, like all large enerprises with multiple subsidiaries (a Group), operates on a “shared services” model for things like legal, treasury and finance and some procurement and some IT infrastructure. Only makes sense rather than duplicate these functions. However the costs of these areas are redistributed across the subsidiaries commensurate with use/volume.
It is a myth within Qantas that Jetstar is subsidised by Qantas mainline. It isn’t.
And Jetstar operates very independently (as it should) and has a very different philosophy or strategy in regards to many things (particularly distribution) and this I know causes a degree of heartache within Qantas. Does not mean that it should follow Qantas or adopt Qantas mainline strategies, even though it is Qantas.
It does not even use Qantas for airport ground handling (except maybe a few places where no alternative, not sure) because Qantas is too expensive (primarily because of inflexible work practices and other conditions)
Jetstar has already been a good catalyst for change within Qantas. Bear in mind also that it operates in most cases on routes where Qantas used to lose heaps of money and has started up new routes where Qantas mainline could never have established a profitable operation.
Ben Beveridge the QF overrun was directly attributed to management cost savings interference in flight ops.
As a fuel saving measure pilots were encouraged not to use full reverse thrust on landing.
A similar incidence management in interference flight ops with regards to incentivising pilots to focus on fuel saving rather than proper procedure resulted in the Garuda fireball that killed several people.
There are some areas where corners should not be cut and expert knowledge of flight ops rather than expert financial knowledge should be the priority.
Hi Sandman
I assure that I am not at Qantas HQ. Wouldn’t mind a job there actually.
You obviously cannot stand to see a counter position to yours. I am just trying to get some balance back because of the closed-minded, anti-Qantas diatribe by most on this site.
I kinow that I am wasting my time.
You may all continue to tear down Qantas, maintain your prejudices, subscibe to conspiracies and proffer your narrow and often self-serving viewpoints.
At least I am independent and I think that I generally know what I am talking about because I am an airline buff (well most of the time anyway).
Ben Sandlands knows what he is talking about, he is very knowledgable, but for the 20 years or so I have read his articles he has always seemed to somehow put a negative spin on anything related to Qantas and he rarely seems to apply the same scrutiny or criticism to any other airline.
Good night, and good luck.
Mr Interesting
I am a supporter of Qantas but please do not try to gloss over and blame the Bangkok overun on Qantas flight operations procedure of use of reverse thrust.
You know that it was almost entirely due to dysfunctional crew communication and control and a clear delineation of who was responsible for doing what. You sound like a pilot so you know that seamless, fully integrated crew procedure where each knows the exact resonsibilities of the other and is to provide back-up is an integral part of safe flying operations. On that day the wheels fell off (not literally, then again a couple did get wrenched off) possibly exacerbated by the fact that landing was supposed be under the control of the first officer. That aircraft was never going to pull up before it reached the end of the runway with or without reverse thrust. Thankfully it did not completely come to grief and the pilots did end up making the best of a very bad thing, but largely of their own making. It was primarily the dysfunctional handover from First officer to Captain (or should I say the Captain taking over from the First Officer as it could not be described as a ‘handover’) that bug….d things up as well as the aircraft’s computers confused as to whether the aircraft was commited to a landing or going to do a go around (because of the actions of the crew)
BTW, flight operations procedeures are I understand determined by executive pilots, not accountants.
At 2-45pm Mr Beveridge wished everyone “Good night”. However, at 5-04pm he is still awake. I wonder where Mr Beveridge lives? Apparently not in Australia as at 2-45pm no one in Australia would be wishing readers “Good night”.
I wonder where Mr Beveridge lives if at 2-45pm he is wishing readers “Good night”. I only ask as this could be relevant to the veracity of his lengthy and repeated opinions.
Ben B, You have made many claims about Qantas pilots being tied to inflexible work practices, I would like to know what you believe them to be?
Jim
@Ben Beveridge: mate, you’ve come to the wrong blog. The ad hominem attacks on you, and no real refutation of the points you’ve made should have told you this. The ‘you agree with Qantas management therefore you must be an employee or stooge’ line is tired, and unhelpful, but it doesn’t stop it getting trotted out every time someone supports any aspect of what the company is doing.
@Jim Lodge: you do the work, pick up a copy of the current long haul pilot EBA and then you can count yourself qualified to comment on the flexibility or otherwise of the work practices. Qantas is a legacy airline in every sense of the word: decades of poisonous operational staff relations, wheeled out at every EBA, and a ‘we’re too big to fail’ sentiment that’s seen them make no tough decisions on fleet for at least the last 5 years. I don’t think Joyce’s attempts to fix the airline are 100% correct, as he (or rather the chairman) tried to fix decades of inflexibility in one EBA which was naive at best, and destructive at worst. Given most of their problems are cultural, and culture takes 10 years to change, I don’t give them much hope unfortunately. The current board’s direction seems scatter-gun – they’d have been better off taking it slower and trying to bring the staff along with them, rather than creating new fangled o/s ventures and slanging it out in public. Borghetti, while skilled, faced no such challenges when he took over Virgin. And no, I don’t work there so save your typing peeps.
Lofi,
I think you missed my point, although I agree with much of what you have said.
Ben B is extremely opinionated without it seems, substantiation. The issue at hand is the constant attacks from Ben B who obviously has a bone to pick with the pilots at Qantas.
I would like to know from him what he believes are the outdated and inflexible work practices and how he would fix them or is he just regurgitating what he has heard in the press from Qantas.
I look forward to a response for Ben B soon.
Jim
Further,
Your claim that Borghetti had no such problems at Virgin is incorrect in regards to operational staff relations. The former CEO had fostered terrible staff relations for years and it is only with real leadership that the company is beginning to have some synergy again. At least part of the reason for continued success.