Call for Qantas to be held accountable over Emirates talk
Because of an email glitch yesterday a statement made by the TWU calling for Qantas to be investigated by the corporate watchdog (or sleeping poodle) in relation to Emirates discussions and profit guidance, vanished into the ether.
Curiously enough, it also appears to have escaped the vigilance of the general media yesterday.
This is the core of the media release from the union.
These are important issues, which also apply to other companies and highlight public indifference to awkward questions about corporate household names in Australia in general.
Over a lunch yesterday where the sauces were far less interesting than the sources well placed people remained divided as to where the Emirates issue would go, and whether or not it made headlines as just another Qantas distraction from the grim reality of the current conduct of the enterprise.
However most of the table expected Qantas to have some more shocks to announce on 23 August at the year-to-30-June-results media and analyst conferences.
In so far as a closer relationship with Emirates is concerned, the view was that really significant and potentially time consuming ACCC and possibly FIRB review processes would be triggered, with the outcomes uncertain.
The table was strongly in agreement that there is little Qantas could offer Emirates apart from a surrender which would accelerate the demise of the full service components of the enterprise, freeing up management to focus on attacking the legacy culture of Qantas with more jets for Qantaslink using cheaper enterprise agreements and pursuing options for growing the Jetstar franchise.
Categories: Uncategorized
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This seems to be a lot about nothing as rumours abound on talks in govt and elsewhere etc and where the rumours come from is anybody’s guess. Only a little while ago you suggested because there was no gossip then those talks with Emirates had lapsed. All QF has said is that they are in talks with a few including Emirates. Note MH has said they want to talk now, as had QATAR and now it seems Singapore airport may wish to reconsider the slots it said it did not have a few months back for the much derided premium narrow body Airline, interestingly with seat like AAs’ lie flats on A320s trans US; which are a tiny bit like A380s seats. I think Emirates would love access to QFs domestic network, like QF would love access to Emirates Europe/Africa network. Hard for the regularot to knck back QF when they have agreed a similar deal with, Virgin, Etihad, and SQ. I suspect few friends of QF at the lunch table
by patrick kilby on Aug 1, 2012 at 9:57 am
“QF love access to Emirates Europe/Africa network” really? There was a time when QF had its own Europe access eg Rome, Athens, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam? even Manchester, but gave the game away.
by ltfisher on Aug 1, 2012 at 10:27 am
ItFisher I think yolu will find Paris is QF locked out to only three frequencies per week (not enough to be viable) and the others don’t have the loads any more for a big plane, but maybe a 787-8 (but not to Athens, Rome or Milan when italy recovers) but even then would be marginal. Note they have those connections through LHR now and I suspect QF would prefer Dubai.
by patrick kilby on Aug 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm
I now consider statements or press releases from Mr Joyce on par with Clare Werbeloff – the Chk Chk Boom girl………..sounds sensational, but really just B.S.
by TN Kangaroo (Blue Tail) on Aug 1, 2012 at 1:36 pm
patrick kilby: I think you’ll find QF’s 747-300s from Melbourne to Rome were pretty much chockers until they dropped the route claiming it to be uneconomical. Now, I think you’ll find Emirates, SIA, Qatar, Etihad, Malaysia, Thai, Cathay are all doing quite nicely between Australian and Italy.
by Cat on a PC© on Aug 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Mr IT Fisher. You seem to be living in the deep, dark, irrelevant past.
Why do yo think that Qantas ceased to fly to those destinations? Why do you think that Qantas did not make a real profit until 1995? – and this was at a time when there were still decent margins in the international airline business.
It would be good to see a few on this blog genuinely try to come to grips with the real reasons why Qantas international is suffering.
B…. all to do with Joyce and Clifford and not having B777s.
Ben, I gain the impression that those sitting at your table were indulging themselves in more wishful thinking about Qantas’ demise and the demise of its executive team. Probably a few big fish from an irrelevant small pond swimming around your table; possibly comprised of engineer and pilot species.
I assure you that there are many benefits that Qantas can bring Emirates; but all need to also recognise that a proper tie-up with Emirates is not a single solution to be a panacea for all of Qantas international’s issues.
But if it is a route profit share arrangement and Qantas becoming a solid spoke in Emirates global hub network; then it will certainly be an excellent start.
At least Patrick Kilby endeavors to be reasoned and rational in his contributions to this blog.
And Mr TN Kangaroo (Blue Tail), to my knowledge Alan Joyce has not issued any recent press releases regarding Emirates or Red Q restarting. As I understand it, all Qantas has said via its Public Affairs office is (in response to press speculation) that it is in discussions with a number of airlines, of which Emirates is one.
by DB2820 Postman on Aug 1, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Interesting to see the types of things that union officials get involved with days.
Tony Sheldon and the TWU and Qantas is a case in point.
No more “dark satanic mills” to worry about (certainly had a role then); so for the past 50 years or so in the union club arena it’s all about getting into the limelight, in fact grabbing the spotlight, and above all the pursuit of “power” and, if you feel inclined, maybe pursuing a political career on the side. But much more fun being the puppetier than the puppet. And if you get the power, then stay in the shadows.
Then somewhere, way, way back there in the dim, dark background, is the rank and file and the annoyance that you have to throw them a bone every now and then. Such an inconvenience it must be.
I used to be an industrial advocate many, many years ago and then I was idealistic but moreover naive. And I tell you, even then, it was just like that.
It is union members who are the people that should have contempt for union leaders these days; not those outside.
It is very akin to what the Russian leaders became after the revolution; a landed gentry of privilege and power with contempt for the people but all maintained in the name of the people. The ultimate and unforgivable hypocrisy
by DB2820 Postman on Aug 1, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Postman , I have never read such a load of condescending nonsense.
by ghostwhowalksnz on Aug 1, 2012 at 5:37 pm
DB2820 Postman
Could it be, those close to the management & board at Qantas are beginning to sound a little desperate in their defense of the Qantas strategy? It appears the TWU are on to something and so close to the end of year results…
At the end of the day, Clifford, his board and front man A Joyce have performed poorly, promising the world but so far delivering only an atlas!
Airlines are a people business, if you can’t inspire the people in the business then how do you inspire the other people, its potential customers….?
Currently the Qantas problem, people have stopped believing in the slogan … “there is a new spirit.” it’s a mess and all self inflicted.
by Elton timjack on Aug 1, 2012 at 6:32 pm
I sure the people at ASIC are quite capable of monitoring ASX statements from publicly listed companies and identifying those that justify futher scrutiny regarding continuous disclosure obligations or other potential breaches of corporations law. They don’t need any help from union national secretaries in doing so – such statements are merely playing politics. Tony Sheldon is ony second to Paul Howes in media whore status.
It is contradictory to be accusing Qantas of “fueling rumours” on one hand and failing disclosure on the other. I see nothing wrong with Qantas informing the market that it is pursuing code share agreements with other airlines, however, I do see an issue in the late disclosure of their profit downgrade.
StickShaker
by StickShaker on Aug 1, 2012 at 6:54 pm
DB2820 Postman
Check out the QF share price, shrinking route structure, industrial relations and PR disasters (i.e. grounding airline one day, then flogging a free pair of 1st class pyjamas on a twitter feed that went toxically viral the next day), leg-up-for-Virgin, Red-Q, Far-Q……… and so on……. and stop calling people whores, your ignorance is starting to upset me!
by Kate on Aug 1, 2012 at 8:03 pm
I love it how some of the more prolific posters are so quick to both bash and defend Qantas’ decisions over the last 10-15 years.
Yes it is true, as Mr Postman says that Qantas did not deliver a profit until 1995. However, as you would be well aware, only until shortly before that time, there was not a requirement for the company to deliver full disclosure on it’s books.
The simple fact is that you have to look over the period that is applicable.
In the time that Alan Joyce has been CEO and Leigh Clifford has been Chairman there has been NOTHING but reduction in destinations and frequency, reduction in service, antagonism with shareholders, the government of the day and the public, and above all a massive drop in share price. That is all that is valid.
Sure they inherited a humpy with a mansion facade from Dixon and Jackson, but at the end of the day they have both had ample time to do something to turn the place around, and they have not. All they have done is driven the value of the company, both in terms of shares and customer through the floor.
At the end of the day, I don’t believe that this Emirates deal will be worth the paper it is written on for Qantas international, even if it does get written. Qantas international is on life support because of terminal (excuse the pun) abuse and there is nothing that will save it from here on in (especially given the people who hold power of attorney). Even if the B787 bypasses Jetstar, the brand is mortally damaged purely because of the way the customer and service providers (read airport operators, suppliers etc) have been treated by Qantas management. The way in which international covers the costs of so many parts of the business in the recent split up is testament to the fact that management know international is finished.
The only saving grace is that Emirates might provide a feeder to keep Qantas domestic going when the international arm collapses.
I feel genuinely sorry for the Qantas staff who have seen it coming, have tried desperately to stop it, have been slammed by the self pontificates on this and other forums for standing up, have still tried to deliver the product that was promised and who, at the end, will be the ultimate losers in this ego trip of Qantas management.
by muffin on Aug 1, 2012 at 11:56 pm
When the Abu Dhabi government gave the Dubai government a few billion to save all those stupid projects their next door neighbour thought were a good idear at the time the level playing field went out the window. If Qantas had any insight into that transaction it would have told them that the rules of business no longer exist. Alan Joyce can only hope that next time Dubai needs cash nobody answers the call. Its just a game of who has the deepest pockets now.
by gapot on Aug 2, 2012 at 8:48 am
Hey I am really glad that I have touched a few raw nerves.
I was intentionally being condescending to see if I could get a bite
As I have said on this blog many times; I do not really like Qantas.
I rarely travel Qantas because of it.
What I like least is the attitude and service delivery of their staff. Their flight attendants (with few excepptions) should fly onboard one of their competitors and see the difference.
Qantas can be excellent, but rarely. Generally OK but many times really bad.
Singapore Airlines by comparison, always very good, frequently excellent, rarely just good; never bad.
But I feel at times I have to defend Qantas against the mindless diatribe on this blog.
And Kate? I am a little mystified by your outburst. What do you mean “calling people whores”?
And guys I do not take back anything I have said about unions and union leaders these days.
Unlike many of you I have been part of and seen the inside of these organisations. They took away my idealism completely. And before that I was student activist and anti-Vietnam protestor and the full deal. Among other things I studied industrial relations at university and was a qualified industrial advocate.
Unions certainly had a role to play in the past when there was little legislation to protect workers and workers rights and they were brave and driven people.
But just because they had a significant role in our historic past, does not mean that they are relevant today. They provide litlle value to the average person these days and it is for most of the leadership simply a vehicle to other more desired destinations.
The best companies do not have union staff because the staff see little value in unions. They are protected by the laws of this country against gross excesses.
It is the prosperity of the company that will provide job security not unions. If companies are less prosperous, they cut back and this happens with or without unions. Unions can do nothing to stop this and regrettably they are often a factor that contributes to the demise of the company in the first place. And this is not about rates of pay; it is about flexibility and productivity.
Qantas is a case in point. Unions have never at any time contributed positively to that company and those staff that have stood behind the union at Qantas have only ever done damage to the company and ultimately their job security.
Now, I am not saying that the staff and the unions are responsible for Qantas’ international demise. Far from it. There are many larger and far more complex elements impacting Qantas than that, but you cannot get away from the fact that some Qantas staff and their apalling attitudes and work practices are part of it.
I am also not a fan of Joyce and Clifford, but it is far too simplistic to lay all the blame at their feet, to believe that they have done all the damage and believe that if they went away that everything would be OK again.
The main thing that people need to understand is that there have in the past 15 years or so been major structural shifts in global aviation and Qantas is now facing the perfect storm. It is the accumulation of many factors that have been evident for a long time and that have grown as time passes and it has been one of those deaths by a thousand cuts when fully conscious and ware what is happening to you.
One thing that is evident on this blog is that very, very few understand the massive advantage that international hub carriers have over end-of-the-line carriers like Qantas. That is also why carriers like Air France, KLM. Lufthansa, British Airways, Iberia, Alitalia, Austrian, Swiss, SA and the the like are being so impacted, even though they have large home markets to draw on. They are also being savaged by the low cost carriers on short haul routes.
So no point in dreaming about the past. They will never return.
For Qantas international to survive in any meaningful way it must form a close route revenue sharing alliance with a major hub carrier in either ME or north Asia.
And BTW, the number of passengers that Qantas domestic gains from international inbound and outbound is negligible. Less than 4% of total uplift and low yield at that; some in fact for no revenue because of common-rated international fares to from the gateways of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne .
by DB2820 Postman on Aug 2, 2012 at 11:04 am
Postman,
It’s a recital, not a diatribe.
*The share price is trashed
*There are no dividends
*It went crawling to a large Arab airline when it was lobbying politicians about the dangers of letting a smaller Arab airline work more closely with a smaller Australian airline
*Domestic is following international down the dunny, with genius managers replacing peak hour two class 737s with one class turbo-props, and the same turbo-props being put on two hour epics of discomfort in slow one class non-reclining flights on other city pairs
*It is supposedly meeting the competitive advantages of newer jets by refurbishing older jets with higher maintenance and fuel consumption costs
*Management constantly attacks is own staff and product, failing to make the link between engaging staff and getting better results
*It tells the established carriers of Asia it is coming to get them and set up a new operation in their territory by press release in the English language Australian press, and doesn’t even have the manners or intelligence to approach the relevant authorities in the target countries in advance of a concept that is still without a name, shareholders, or country of residence
*It attempts to recruit cadet pilots to fly in Australia for NZ wages, taxes and conditions
*After taking so long to negotiate expiring world place agreements it finds itself wedged by lawful industrial action, it willfully strands 100,000 of its customers world wide to change the situation, and then rewards generously those who weren’t even disrupted because of their existing FFP status, and so forth.
I could try being diatribical (*new word copyright Plane Talking) but I think a straight forward recital of the achievements of this management of excellence which is hell bent on destroying the carrier to destroy legacy work place practices that DO NEED CHANGE is all that is required.
by Ben Sandilands on Aug 2, 2012 at 11:35 am
Re: DB2820 Postman
Well, all that could have been simplified to a few words that really matter. Western airlines have to compete with competitors that pay lower wages, have lousy, or no decent working conditions and social obligations. What we basically see is that ever so highly praised “free enterprise”, better expressed as survival at any cost in todays markets, guarantees ever lower wages and conditions for workers in affluent countries. Mind you the CEO’s still pocket their millions annually.
by icarus on Aug 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Hi there Ben
Good to hear from you. When using the word diatribe I did not actually have you in mind. However, I shall in future refer to your “commentary” or “contribution” rather than “recital”. Recital to me (other than musically) means a “detailed statement of facts or figures”. Do not see much of that here regrettably. But I do find your commentary interesting most times; even if a little biassed. But I can read past that and appreciate what is sometimes quite well informed opinion; even the ocasional bit of levity.
Have to agree with you on some of the things you listed. The late guidance to the market re their financial performance was a disgrace. But airline share prices will always be in the toilet; regardless. Why? Because a share price is primarily a reflection of future performance and risk. And there will always be an analyst that will write up a doomsday scenario for any airline, regardless of its past performance.
Agree with you about crawling to the government about Arab airlines. You may remember how on this blog I made the statement that Dixon had used up all the Qantas favours with the government with years of crying “Wolf”. Bear in mind also that the government has not given Qantas any free kicks by constantly awarding extra capacity to the ME and Asian airlines as they wanted it; and hence enhancing the already favoured position of them all being hub (parasite) carriers, with no home market to speak of and hence providing no reciprocal benefit for Qantas.
With your comments on the grounding, you seem to completely gloss over the huge damage that was being done to the airline as the unions’ tactic was to hurt Qantas as much as possible by damaging its brand. How about that engineer union heavy recommending on TV that everyone travel on airlines other than Qantas because he no longer thought them to be safe, casting aspersions on their maintenance and safety?
That was certainly in the interests of Qantas employees, wasn’t it?
And what about the TWU constantly broadcasting how they were going on strike on X day (and Qantas passengers booking any airline other than Qantas) and then calling it off on the day before. They did that many times over.
And the pilots’ jingoistic campaign was also damage to Qantas’ brand. Regardless of what the pilots say; it created a perception with the public that Qantas was doing something wrong with its pilots and that meant in their minds that it must be cutting the corners on safety. Why else would the pilots be speaking out?
And the engineers worked to rules, and dilly dallied and delayed, so that aircraft were grounded because of defects not rectified until such time Qantas had nearly 30% of its fleet grounded and creating havoc with its schedules.
None of these things were in the interests of the employees of Qantas and many now will bear the brunt as a result. Why? Because Qantas has had its brand trashed through constant and rigorous attack by the very people who work there, as well as a broad perception that its operational performancce is seen as unreliable.
But there will be consequences of all this.
Qantas has lost a lot of passengers as a direct result of these assaults (as well as the assaults of its competitors and the impact of the GFC and the somewhat poor management at all levels within the airline as well as crappy customer service delivery), and many people at all levels are now going to lose their jobs.
Maybe these people will value what they had after they have lost it. It was certainly the case with Ansett staff and they were part of Ansett’s problems in the end as were the unions that fought to maintain the feather-bedding.
Within 18 months Virgin was carrying as many passengers as Ansett and with bit over one third the total number of staff. Says a lot doesn’t it.
And with Qantas it is a snowball gathering size as it rolls down the hill, and many more heads will go (maybe including the CEO) as this year passes. They are in a “stall” and it will take some significant effort yet if they are not to crash land.
And what about this paranoia about Jetstar? It is a very successful model, but we need to remember that it is an LCC with a very different strategy to a full service network carrier. Very different to Qantas mainline.
And it sems that most on this blog want Jetstar to fail and to throw these employees out of jobs also. Madness.
Many, it seems, fail to remember that Qantas had a recent failure with a so-called low cost carrier in the new (revived) “Australian Airlines” international carrier.
Why did it fail? Because it was not low cost at all. It was tainted with all the high cost problems and trappings of Qantas mailine including high cost inflexible work practice crew.
So Qantas was not going to make the same mistake again when it started up Jetstar.
The Jetstar strategy is not to replace Qantas, whatever the conspiratorialists may say on this blog. It is a completely separate (primarily Asian) strategy.
We should all be championoing it as an Australian enterprise moving into markets beyond the cosy shores of Australia.
And the fleet issues you and others constantly refer to are primarily because the so-called reputable Boeing Corporation is over 4 years behind with the B787 delivery. Even when initially it was delayed and Jetstar had to “temporarily” bring in A330s, two years ago those same A330s were supposed to have replaced the Qantas domestic 767s.
by DB2820 Postman on Aug 2, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Postman,
I’ve always been in favor of a new business model that expands airline jobs by facilitating even larger scale mobility. My sticking points with Jetstar are in complicity in some very bad calls about risk in the Qantas group, some very serious safety issues as discussed under legally privileged commentary here based on ATSB reports, one of which I caused after management mislead the ATSB as to the seriousness of the July 2007 incident resulting from a non documented change to the approved flight manual, and the nastiness and dishonesty of the fly in Australia get paid in NZ cadet pilot rort, and ….. I could go on too much!
If I hadn’t been otherwise distracted I was going to look closely at the latest easyJet and WestJet results, which have been big success stories, even in these difficult times, for shareholders and staff, and really take it to the establishment carriers in a way that I had always hoped an Australian LCC would, but alas, hasn’t. (Not including DJ in this as it morphed away from that long before it became VA. WestJet reminds me of DJ in its finest years, which were financial 03, 04 and 05 and have not as yet been surpassed in key proportionate metrics such as margins by any jet airline in Australia.)
As to FWA. I was pretty close to the fire on this, and have no doubt that if Joyce had told the tribunal that he needed the circuit breaker of a discontinuation of protected industrial action it would have been granted. It was his totally absurb in my opinion, fixation with generating shock and awe headlines, using 100,000 customers as fodder, that I think was inexcusable. As do some leading advertising houses in this country that for the first few months backed him, but have now seen the research into just how intrinsically damaging to Qantas the grounding was.
Joyce in my opinion has done immense and direct and deep harm to the company by the pursuit of headlines that appeared to coincidentally stimulate share price movements, yet not improve the position of the carrier commensurate with seeking similar industrial outcomes without the sturm und drang Wagnerian inferno method of getting attention.
And in the main arbitration by FWA, the licensed engineers, the outcome was no different to what everyone, even in the union, had thought would be the outcome had the EBA negotiations been conducted in the normal manner.
There is an ideological basis for much of what we have seen management do in terms of not even wanting to negotiate with organised labor (an activity anathema to Chairman Clifford) that has exceeded a prudent, shareholder focused response by management, which has also dropped the ball when it comes to measures which would have rendered Qantas substantially better off today than it is.
I know it might seem like a very fine point to argue, but I’m not trying to campaign for the labour agenda at Qantas, which is full of flaws, but against the unwillingness or inability of the media to decouple the Qantas media spin from the more complex and difficult issues that really ought to be kicked around in the public arenas rather than sin binned.
by Ben Sandilands on Aug 2, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Ben, I actually agree with many (most) of the points you raise.
I totally agree that grounding the airline was an over the top reaction. Even though the actions of the unions and certain staff were a real problem; it was way over the top.
But this over the top reaction, should not be used as an excuse to overlook or whitewash what I believe were seriously damaging actions and the Qantas staff that supported it were too gullible to see that they were mere pawns and being taken for a ride in what was pursuit of union power.
The return of the militantcy of the unions could do much harm to this country. It is part of the Australian productivity issue; but I acknowledge that it is only part of it.
Anyway, regardless of who was responsible, between the staff, the unions and Joyce and Clifford, a massive amount of damage has been done to the Qantas brand at a time when it can least afford it. It has a vast array of other problems without the increased burden that the brand damage brings; which equates to a large loss of customers.
So nobody is going to win out of all this other than Qantas’ competitors.
Many Qantas staff will lose their jobs and regrettably the efforts of the staff themselves and the unions have increased the number that will go. No going back unfortunately.
P.S. I actually had an excellent flight on Qantas domestic last week when I had to go to Brisbane (two flights actually, there and back). This was both in the air and on the ground. Could not fault the staff. I have been flying Virgin a lot lately, but these two flights were considerably better than my Virgin experiences.
Maybe it is getting through to some customer facing staff that they do make a difference: that it is them that people see as Qantas, not the planes or the management. So I might have to change my tune about what I have said about Qantas staff and service.
But afraid to say that I still have a very jaundiced view on Qantas international. Most of the staff I come across it seems do not want to be there, but do not want to have to revert to the lousy pay of working in a bar or a store. Been the case for as long as I can remember.
To think that a senior international flight attendant on Qantas earns about $150,000 pa plus allowances!!. There would probably be a line of people from east coast to west coast wanting such a job. Trouble is it seems, noone leaves so no jobs available.
And the younger fresher ones will soon be losing their jobs (i.e. unions and “last on, first off”) for all of the reasons previously outlined. So I expect that inflight will only get worse, not better.
Well at least I won’t be onboard to experience it. I travel far too much to have to put up with it.
by DB2820 Postman on Aug 2, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Two comments Postman:
First I seriously question your “senior flight attendant” getting $150k plus allowances. Evidence please.
However, I agree with your comment re Boeing and the ‘late’ 787 situation. I have never understood why QF hasn’t taken Boeing by the throat on this issue. Fair enough to criticise QF and Dixon and company for putting so many eggs in the one basket but Boeing really have been let off the hook too often by subsequent and present management.
by ltfisher on Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 pm
On the issue of QF leaking; the statement by Emirates suggest they are doing the leaking to lever QF into an agreement. Maybe the union should take Emirates to task (just joking) and I think you will find Emirates pay quite well, at least on their Western routes (maybe the staff in the intra-Asian cattle trucks may get less). The whole idea has merits if QF have its European hub in Dubai and its Asian Hub in Singapore with some BA crossover from Singapore, assuming Sinapore Airport come to the party and finds some slots, even though QF will give up at least three pairs, but the new airline will want more than that up to 10 pairs one would think.
by patrick kilby on Aug 3, 2012 at 8:17 am
Mr ITfisher
As you would appreciate I am unable to reveal my sources on this blog.
They are not within the airline but very reliable and in a position to know.
To give you an indication that my information is accurate, I provide you with the following re QF international flight attendants excluding allowances:
Flight Service Manager = $152 K;
Flight Service Supervisor = $130 K;
Flight Attendant = $110 K
I was once before lampooned on this site for making statements about Qantas A380 captain’s pay.
Other sources that I have access to have confirmed the following:
A380 check and training captains: = $500 K
A380 line captain: = $380 K
As you would appreciate, these figures are gross and would I assume include super.
by DB2820 Postman on Aug 3, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Patrick Kilby,
I think the leaks and statement from Qantas caused Emirates to talk control of the discussion in which their name was being used by nominating a time frame, six months, and the nature of the deal, a non-revenue sharing code share.
by Ben Sandilands on Aug 3, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Postman.
I know AJCo would love people to believe their spin, however I don’t know who is selling you those numbers, but if you believe them, I think you should buy some ice some from me to go in your Alaskan property venture.
What did those “sources” say re AJ earning less per hour than an A380 Capt?
I know. I have seen the actual numbers. Sorry to burst your bubble.
From the ACTUAL numbers, the highest paid pilot is the Chief Pilot who makes a 7 figure sum. However the irony is that he has not flown an aeroplane for 4 years.
The pyramid is top-heavy and has been for a long long time.
by muffin on Aug 4, 2012 at 5:47 am
OK since we are talking information, why doesn’t the new QF Domestic CEO hold the Air Operators licence for Domestic operations ?
Surely he has enough aviation experience ?
Does he ?
by TN Kangaroo (Blue Tail) on Aug 5, 2012 at 7:44 am
Hey there Muffin. No burst bubble here.
Goes to show that I know a lot more than you do Muffin (which I knew anyway)
Let me assure that those salary numbers are correct. In fact the total for check and training captains is a gross salary including super and allowances of $502,000.
I have not mentioned chief pilot salary. Nor have I compared pilots’ salaries to Joyce.
The flight attendant figures are accurate as well.
Maybe it is you who has been misled.
Certainly seems that you have an axe to grind with Qantas. What happened?
Please do not correct me again.
by DB2820 Postman on Aug 5, 2012 at 8:26 pm
TN Kangaroo (Bluetail)
I guess that may happen with time. I assume that there would be a massive bureaucracy behind it all.
Any way thought I might provide you with a bit of info on QF Domestic CEO. I happen to have known the guy for about 20 years.
Hi name is Lyell Strambi. He has been in the aviation business for about 30 plus years. Was originally at Ansett and left when Air NZ took over and then went to Virgin Atlantic where he was until about 3 years ago (when he came to Qantas) their Chief Operating Officer.
by DB2820 Postman on Aug 5, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Thank you Postman for your response..
Now that we have identified who is who, apply the same questions to the QF Intl CEO.
Why was he denied to hold the Intl Ops licence by the industry regulator ?
Why is Lyell Strambi running DOM Ops, when the INTL Operation desperately needs someone with his 30 plus years of experience ?
Who ‘ZOOOMIN’ who….?
by TN Kangaroo (Blue Tail) on Aug 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Oh well.
Alas Postman, it seems that your acquaintance for 20 years, has given you the same info that he has gathered from the yes men that has been gathered around him.
To answer your question, nothing happened. I left QF years ago (from a contractual position) not only because I got lambasted, by many, including managers who we both apparently know, who refused to believe what my part of the company said, but because of many other business/economic reasons. I am very happy at an amazingly different business now.
The info we gave QF, dating back 4+ years ago, included that Virgin would put wide-bodies on domestic, and introduce business class, a “lounge”, and a FF program with international tie-ups. That came from that they had no choice based on the premise that they could not compete with QF/JQ based on their “new world” carrier model.
Not to mention the lack of ability by QF to provide a promised service on the above.
“Don’t worry about that” was the verbatim response.
When you have managers in any company, who do nothing to improve the business, drive the value down and yet take inappropriate bonuses, yes I have an axe to grind- mainly because I have morals.
Seeing as the lack of ability by AJ and co to foresee the profit/loss statements, until a couple of months ago when it was apparently public, I trust that they will forgo their bonuses for this financial year.
The proof will in 4-5 years time.
I desperately hope I am wrong, and if I am, I will buy you many a beer. But track record will prove otherwise.
by muffin on Aug 8, 2012 at 6:51 am