Marty_d Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Almost universal coverage at alll the mentioned enterprises, that's why I said "a common thread". It's obviously not just IR, and I certainly don't blame people seeking to address the natural imbalance of power in an employee/employer relationship, but rather the almost lemming like behaviour by industrial organisations of constantly seeking more for less until the host organism dies (hows that for some mixed metaphors!) In some cases I'd agree with you, there have obviously been cases of unions seeking far too much for workers. In the main though they face a constant battle just to ensure wages keep up with cost of living. Then you have the opposite side of the pendulum, the FIFO effect where the good ol' free market means mines making massive profits hike up wages to ridiculous levels in specific areas in order to get enough workers. This has devastating effects on the local economy for anyone NOT connected to the mining operation, except for landlords, who hike rents up beyond the reach of other locals. Also drains the talent away from the areas where the workers live, causing hardship for businesses there. Wouldn't it be a good idea to regulate some of this swing out of the market, set fair awards across the board linked to cost of living increases, and set salary/entitlement caps? Plus limit executive conditions to, say, 20 times that of the lowest paid worker in the company. And before you say that this will cause a "brain drain" of talent overseas, just look at the fine job that imports such as Alan Joyce and Sol Trujillo did with Australian companies and tell me that they were worth their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Qantas has needed to shed fat for a long time. It is understandable that employees want to protect their jobs but going on strike has rarely had the desired effect in the past. Joyce has been getting plenty of stick from Australians who feel some sort of ownership of the Qantas name largely because he is not Australian. The same happened when Ansett disappeared, it was all Air NZ's fault. The fact that Ansett was a complete basket case when bought by Air NZ had nothing to do with it. Joyce has to make tough decisions for Qantas' survival. He's made a lot already & these are never popular, just necessary. Air NZ lost 1.5 billion after the Ansett debacle & had to be taken over by the NZ Government or it would no longer exist. Abbot doesn't seem at all interested in this approach but it may be the only way to save Qantas. Since 2001 Air NZ has become much leaner with fewer types in the fleet & is now growing again with a recently announced 40% increase in profit, & the government now owns only 53% of it. It is far smaller than Qantas but plays in the same sandpit. I think there could be some lessons learned by Air NZ that Qantas could well take heed of. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 KG, I agree with pretty much everything you say about Air NZ, and the fact that perhaps Qantas should be taken over by the government. Good luck getting that one past Abbott & crew, they don't even want the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and that's making a profit. However I feel a lot of sympathy for the employees, and lets face if, if you're going to face the axe anyway then you have nothing to lose by going on strike and making the travelling public aware of your predicament. I don't agree that the reason Joyce is getting stick is because he's not Australian - (yes I did call him a little Irish git, mainly because 1- they're all accurate descriptions of him and 2- the way he is immediately identifiable is by that accent). I think he's getting stick because he's done a piss-poor job of running the airline, and so would an Australian-born CEO if they were to do the same thing. One of Qantas's troubles is that they're trying to maintain their market share even though there is a lot more competition from other carriers (many heavily subsidised by their governments, something else Abbott wouldn't consider). Maybe instead of pumping millions into upgrading their airport lounges around the world, upgrading the TV's on their planes, trying to muscle out competition and producing glossy magazines that no one reads, they need to concentrate on their core business - shifting people safely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The first thing Qantas SHOULD have learned was not to appoint Joyce. Ansett was a 'basket case' when Air New Zealand bought controlling rights from News Ltd., who had pulled the wool over Air NZ's eyes by withholding a lot of facts. Who was up to his neck in the basket case situation at Ansett? - Allan Joyce. And he obviously learned NOTHING from the situation at Ansett because he's perpetuated the same mistakes at Qantas: too many aircraft types, abominable staff relations, and a belief that adopting Reg Ansett's 'bash 'em all' style of management works in the long run. I have a mate who used to be a Check Captain at Qantas. He has several sons now flying as airline pilots - for Virgin. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 As for his sexual orientation, you brought that up. I have no interest in who he roots, as long as it's not Qantas. I'm happy to bring it up. Gays are a Minority and quite a number of the Majority are put off by the CEO of a company that seeks to attract members of the Majority to use their services being 'openly gay'. Sadly your not able to say these things these days without being frowned upon and having key words such as 'xenephobe' or 'bigot' etc being thrown at you but I couldn't care less and I'll choose not to fly Qantas while the CEO is 'openly gay' (in difference to just being gay which I don't actually care about). How do you know a person is openly gay, a feminist or a vegan? No need to worry, they'll find you and tell you soon enough. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Listening to an economist today on the radio. Said that qantas staff costs 25% of its costs whereas other airlines are running about 15%. Doesn't matter what your political leanings or whether you are a union person or not. If you have to pay a quarter of your costs as income you can't compete against competitors who pay 15%. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Listening to an economist today on the radio. Said that qantas staff costs 25% of its costs whereas other airlines are running about 15%.Doesn't matter what your political leanings or whether you are a union person or not. If you have to pay a quarter of your costs as income you can't compete against competitors who pay 15%. Taking the knife to AJ's $5.01m salary may be a start (he had a pay rise of 71% in 2011, up from $2.92m). I'm happy to bring it up. Gays are a Minority and quite a number of the Majority are put off by the CEO of a company that seeks to attract members of the Majority to use their services being 'openly gay'.Sadly your not able to say these things these days without being frowned upon and having key words such as 'xenephobe' or 'bigot' etc being thrown at you but I couldn't care less and I'll choose not to fly Qantas while the CEO is 'openly gay' (in difference to just being gay which I don't actually care about). How do you know a person is openly gay, a feminist or a vegan? No need to worry, they'll find you and tell you soon enough. WTF? So by that reasoning, openly heterosexual people shouldn't run companies either? People are people. They shag other people. As long as those people are over the age of consent and consenting, who the hell cares? And for all his faults, I don't think I've ever heard him say "come fly with us, because I'm gay!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 The little Irish git or whatever you like to call him is doing exactly what he set out to do when he took over. Think back a few years and you will remember the furore when Qantas wanted to let the rich money consortiums from overseas take over. Those managers have gone and the agenda is still the same. It was there for all to see years ago and none of the pollies, nor the media could see it. I think I commented about it here in this forum years ago, but just one voice in the wilderness doesn't get heard. Sad to think that another Aussie Icon may go, in fact it is sad to realise that it is our only icon. Forget Holden, all they did was take the profits to the US. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Unions trying to keep wages rising at the same rate as the cost of living.....that is a big problem. When economies tank, wages should fall. There is no God-given right to maintain the purchasing power of employees while the employer is sinking. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Did that economist indicate a breakdown of those staff costs? Let's look at a few slightly more sophisticated ideas than just 'all Qantas staff are obviously being paid too much because of the bloody unions'. Qantas used to be the world damn gold standard for airworthiness. No crashes: that's due to top aircrew and top maintenance crew. It wasn't down to bling airport lounges, best frequent flyer programme, best in-flight entertainment, Cordon Bleu sandwiches, how many cup-holders per seat in First-class.. It was down to having the best people for the seriously important jobs, and they were paid well for that. Do we have any decent figures for the comparative rate for Australian (possibly Union) labour on a per-aircraft basis, broken down by flight crew, maintenance crew, others? Is it just possible that the productivity of Australian maintainers (to take one sector) is really quite reasonable - but it is the proliferation of aircraft types and maintenance disposition for the various types that is a serious productivity issue? The facilities, training requirements and spares inventory required for too many types of aircraft will seriously impact the apparent productivity of any maintenance unit. Flight crew can't just jump between different types. It's WAY too simplistic to just suggest that 'Union demands' are the root cause of the problems - or that reducing 'staff costs' without looking at the factors that make up those costs - are the silver bullet. The advent of capital M 'Management' - vs administration, where the job was to make sure that the right aircraft were ready to fly with the right people in the hot seats and the right ticks in the maintenance boxes - started the rot. Geoff Dixon should be tied to a fire-ant nest for what he achieved at Qantas, including the recruitment of the serial Mr. Toad - Allan Joyce. Joyce is somewhat the lowest common denominator of the failure of Qantas management to get its excrement arranged. OK, he's a pretty damn low denominator, I have to admit - subterranean, in fact. He couldn't run a two-flavour ice-cream stand in Siberia without losing half the stock. Australia will only develop a vigorous regional economy by the ensured provision of four essential elements: Power, Water, Communications and Transport. Retain Qantas domestic services as a nationalised service and demand it operate for the common good. Sell off its International services - this country is well served by international airlines that, frankly, are now doing a better job than Qantas. Make sure Joyce goes with the International branch, so he is a gift to the international buyers. I give him nano-seconds of survival as CEO of Qantas International owned by overseas company(ies). We end up with decent national air services in a competitive market. What's not to like? 2 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Unions trying to keep wages rising at the same rate as the cost of living.....that is a big problem. When economies tank, wages should fall. There is no God-given right to maintain the purchasing power of employees while the employer is sinking. The Australian economy has NOT tanked, though it is certainly being driven in that direction by current government policies. And yes, I agree that if a company is sinking, there should be a mechanism by which its employees can vote with their pay-packets to stay aboard with a job or be cast adrift in search of the fabled island of 'wage equality'. However, we should not confuse the fair-enough reaction of employees to a decent share of the cake if a company is getting taxpayer-funded handouts (or quid-pro-quo) rather than propping up a management that is demonstrably failing to do any sort of decent job but is personally raking in exponential times the rise in salary of the cost of living rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozbear Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I wonder why they would put a foreign CEO in isn't there anyone capable of running a great Australian company such as Qantas in this country it wouldn't be hard to do a better job .I wonder what they paid him for his services and how much his golden handshake will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Taking the knife to AJ's $5.01m salary may be a start (he had a pay rise of 71% in 2011, up from $2.92m). CEO salaries are based on a reasonable and often quite low percentage of what savings or profits they are able to achieve, usully very good value . It's a system that generally works very well throughout the business world and no reason for Qantas to differ. I wonder why they would put a foreign CEO in No patriotic emotion and detached from the old crowd. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 ...Sad to think that another Aussie Icon may go, in fact it is sad to realise that it is our only icon... Any other country would drop the idealogical claptrap and save their national airline from being sold off. We need a statesman as a PM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 We have to be very careful that we don't oversimplify our comparisons........years back we had great maintainers...and you needed them with the MTBF's that was de jour, and fault finding that required great understanding and much prior training......Now the failures should be rare, and when they do happen they are known about on the ground the moment they occur, and there is probably fault finding already built in to the system so it can probably identify exactly what has to be changed etc as soon as its on the ground, and the standard between flight line maintenance is a lot easier. As such you don't need the same A team of maintainers, in fact in a global competition the guys with the A team are going to loose...... The reality of fleet age isn't that they try to have a young fleet cause that's what customers want, but rather a young fleet comes with all the efficiency and cost reduction benefits due to technology advancements. Similarly we've jokingly paid out on the glitzy clubs/lounges and cup holders etc........but to suggest that they are completely ignoring market research and throwing money where it isn't needed is too much of a stretch for me...The average peasant traveller can not judge if maintenance is good or bad except by very brute force indicators (# crashes, # of fatalities, # of flights cancelled etc) so all they can use to compare is cost and services offered...... If Q charges a premium (and they sure do! when compared to the alternates) then unless the punter is getting something more that they can see and judge as more (more alternative times, more flashy service, 1000 ass kisses etc.) why would they agree to pay more for perceived less......They might even consider that the safety and engineering and flight crew standards are the purvey of CASA and the Guvmint will make sure that what the customer consumes, meets the required standards, cause in a business that is bleeding money no one is going to exceed the standards if that can be avoided..... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 In the good old days when you got to Sydney and had a connecting flight they would happily bump you to an earlier flight if they had room. Now they wont even do it if you have a fully flexible ticket... And thats why i have no loyalty to either. Simple things like this used to count and they would be the number 1 factor for me as i nearly always need connecting flights.. Because they cant be trusted to be on time, i always need the 2nd flight gap way larger then necesary... If they would bump me to the earlier flight which is always 25% empty, i would love them..... Things like this cost nothing and build the relationship. The relationship is whats damaged and thus loyalty gone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 As much as i dont like Alan one must remember the unprofitable 747 fleet and expensive bad choice to buy A380 they cant fill where not of his making.. He inherited that multi billion disaster....from his glowing predecessor. A lot like the budget disasters the LNP always inherits from Labour. And the PNG disaster on Manus Island was one of Rudss making, but is he being blamed....not to start anything, but just to highlight often financial messes are created by the predecessors. The cleanup unfortunately is much more newsworthy then the morons who create the mess. Mr Joyce far from perfect, but he really is fighting with both hands behind his back and inherited an awful awful mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Actually I don't like him much either Bob but that's not based on who he is. Stooping to racist tags - and it was clearly intentional - is telling. A difficult one. I agree that inappropriate discrimination, particularly in the form of unconscious racism, is a problem in Australia. But nationality is not race, or in this case race-linked; and whilst the irish have been the butt of many jokes - so specifying Alan J as irish carries faint derogatory overtones - it is still a fairly accurate description. I have Welsh, English, Scottish, and - alledgedly - Irish ancestors; also Spanish, if my maternal grandfather is to be believed. I have no problems being associated with the country that gave the world Terence "Spike" Milligan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 In some cases I'd agree with you, there have obviously been cases of unions seeking far too much for workers. In the main though they face a constant battle just to ensure wages keep up with cost of living. Then you have the opposite side of the pendulum, the FIFO effect where the good ol' free market means mines making massive profits hike up wages to ridiculous levels in specific areas in order to get enough workers. This has devastating effects on the local economy for anyone NOT connected to the mining operation, except for landlords, who hike rents up beyond the reach of other locals. Also drains the talent away from the areas where the workers live, causing hardship for businesses there.Wouldn't it be a good idea to regulate some of this swing out of the market, set fair awards across the board linked to cost of living increases, and set salary/entitlement caps? Plus limit executive conditions to, say, 20 times that of the lowest paid worker in the company. And before you say that this will cause a "brain drain" of talent overseas, just look at the fine job that imports such as Alan Joyce and Sol Trujillo did with Australian companies and tell me that they were worth their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. Ok, here goes; "Alan Joyce and... and... Sol... (grunts)... Sol.... Trujillo were... "NO! No, I can't do it. I suggest that the common thread is the short-term fiscal sleight of hand intrinsic in the Harvard School of Business management model (I know that the original Harvard model is way superseded, but the intrinsic confusion between the appearance of wealth and real worth remains entrenched in management pirates the world over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 CEO salaries are based on a reasonable and often quite low percentage of what savings or profits they are able to achieve, usully very good value . It's a system that generally works very well throughout the business world and no reason for Qantas to differ.So Alan will be taking a proportionate pay cut? Or a Net Current Value pay cut? No patriotic emotion and detached from the old crowd. Not detached from Geoff Dixon, though... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 In the good old days when you got to Sydney and had a connecting flight they would happily bump you to an earlier flight if they had room. Now they wont even do it if you have a fully flexible ticket... And thats why i have no loyalty to either. Simple things like this used to count and they would be the number 1 factor for me as i nearly always need connecting flights... I take your point but tickets back then also cost a lot of money and now they don't and they can't afford to stop for every indiviuals needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Yairrsss - I'm an aeronautical engineer, supposedly with some understanding of the aviation industry. Which airline do I prefer when I travel interstate? I fly myself, or drive. Marginal profitability and union action and offshore maintenance make my oldish Subaru look quite attractive, actually. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscotthendry Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 CEO salaries are based on a reasonable and often quite low percentage of what savings or profits they are able to achieve, usully very good value . . I couldn't disagree more with this. The packages that a lot of CEOs are on is demonstrably NOT good value. This is especially true when their remuneration is linked to the share price. What you get from that is short-sightedness on a grand scale. In addition, we've seen far too many cases where a company is fairing badly and jobs are being shed as a result, yet those at the "top" of the food chain are still pulling fat bonuses from the company. That they justify their fatcat salaries on the basis of "savings" which usually entails the sacrificing of other people's livelihoods is the lowest of low acts IMHO. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 we've seen far too many cases where a company is fairing badly and jobs are being shed as a result, yet those at the "top" of the food chain are still pulling fat bonuses from the company. . No, what you see is reporting of just a handful of the 50 million or so Western companies that makes for sensationalistic fodder - and apparently works. The bulk of the other company CEOs, i.e. the ones you never read about, do a fine job of keeping their companies solvent and keeping those at the "bottom" of the food chain employed. Yairrsss - I'm an aeronautical engineer, supposedly with some understanding of the aviation industry. Which airline do I prefer when I travel interstate? I fly myself, or drive. Marginal profitability and union action and offshore maintenance make my oldish Subaru look quite attractive, actually. Not falling out of the skies in any great numbers are they. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscotthendry Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 No, what you see is reporting of just a handful of the 50 million or so Western companies that makes for sensationalistic fodder - and apparently works.The bulk of the other company CEOs, i.e. the ones you never read about, do a fine job ... That same logic could apply to the unions and their leaders...and you're quite right, the sensationalism works. I'm well aware of the saying "pay peanuts, employ monkeys", but what you get when you pay truckloads of peanuts seems to be monkeys who ONLY there for the peanuts. Contrast that with say ambulance officers who get a pittance, but go to work for the good they do, definitely NOT the salary package. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now