Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
red750

Alan Joyce's wedding Saturday

Recommended Posts

Alan Joyce married his long term partner Shane Lloyd in Sydney yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just goes to show someone else can love a narcissist besides themselves...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan Joyce belongs in this forum more than a lot of fringe comment, because it was his policies, which virtually no one in the industry agreed with, which not only brought Qantas back  from potential extinction, but gave it a sound future.

 

I can't remember if he got involved in the gay marriage campaign, which I believe has done massive harm to our society because the people involved were never going to stp there.

 

However, I have known two gay couples for several decades. They don't campaign, are totally committed to each other, just wired differently to us.

 

The announcement was worth making, but doesn't need to be turned into a circus.

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep our comments about people to their public life and actions in the public sphere. I'd rather bitch about his exorbitant salary and perks than who wears the pants in his domestic life. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" I'd rather bitch about his exorbitant salary and perks than who wears the pants in his domestic life. "

I'll second that, Less $millions, (upper management salary) could mean less $ for seats

That lower seat price, should be welcomed by millions of flying public.., not just to keep a dozen bureaucrats happy.

spacesailor 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

" I'd rather bitch about his exorbitant salary and perks than who wears the pants in his domestic life. "

I'll second that, Less $millions, (upper management salary) could mean less $ for seats

That lower seat price, should be welcomed by millions of flying public.., not just to keep a dozen bureaucrats happy.

spacesailor 

Without him you would have had no airline, so you would be sitting on the ground and probably complaining about the poor management of Qantas.

His salary is not set on the same basis as a person who works for $ per fixed hour week doing pre-arranged tasks.

 

He works pretty much the same was as a sales person on commission works; sell nothing, earn nothing, sell a bit grudging commissions, sell a lot and make a lot = bitching about how much you earn compared to the admin staff followed by a reduction in commission percentage.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Without him you would have had no airline, so you would be sitting on the ground and probably complaining about the poor management of Qantas.

His salary is not set on the same basis as a person who works for $ per fixed hour week doing pre-arranged tasks.

 

He works pretty much the same was as a sales person on commission works; sell nothing, earn nothing, sell a bit grudging commissions, sell a lot and make a lot = bitching about how much you earn compared to the admin staff followed by a reduction in commission percentage.

Absolutely correct, except for the part where today's CEOs never seem to lose money when the company loses money,  but still got nothing to do with this forum.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has at least done some good for the company, but there are other CEOs who only aim to enhance their own position and run the company backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a single CEO of any corporation who can claim to be single-handedly responsible for the companys increased profits (or losses, for that matter, too).

The reason being that the CEO is only responsible for the general management and direction of the corporation, and is reliant on the support and direction of the Board of Directors - and the management ability of often hundreds of lower-level managers below him - as well as proper supervision of every employee in his/her job.

The CEO often has minimal control over many of the corporations inputs - such as fuel costs, currency exchange rates, capital expenditure costs, interest rates. His job is a juggling act, at best.

The CEO often has to get the approval of the BoD to carry out decisions involving company direction, purchases, and major management changes.

It's not lost on many people that every CEO is essentially an accountant, intent on "watching the numbers".

The "numbers" do not always represent the position of the company, how it is viewed by its clients, and how good the morale of the company employees is.

Many corporations operate with very poor employee morale, leading to a lack of conscientiousness on the part of the employees, losses caused by poor supervision, and failure to address ongoing problems that eventually lead to the corporation going into insolvency.

It's also telling that many CEO's demand high rates of renumeration, and high levels of bonuses and perks, and rarely suffer greatly if the corporation does not meet profit levels or performance levels.

It has also been noted that senior management renumeration has been increasing at double the rate of the renumeration of the average employee, for at least 25 years.

It's an all-too familiar story that a "leading" CEO is head-hunted for a corporation, runs the corporation for 2-5 years, causes the corporation to lose value and incur losses - and the CEO moves on to another corporation, bragging about his/her "great track record".

Who can remember the American CEO of Telstra who demanded - and got - a "pension" of AU$1M a year, for life, after retiring from the board with a massive "golden handshake" as well. We are still paying for that greed. Talk about lending a whole new level of meaning to the word, "pension".

And the greatest upper management rort of all? The Chairman of Exxon-Mobil who demanded - and got, in 2005 - a $400M golden handshake on retirement.

How did he manage this? He rode on the back of soaring oil prices, it was absolutely nothing to do with his management ability providing superior levels of senior management.

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 No "HUMAN" is worth those ridiculous figures. CEO's who sack workers make the share value rise.  That can be counter intuitive. 

      Workers should be some of the company's best assetts if you have selected them properly. After all the company PICKS who they hire. Joyce hasn't been without faults. Anyone can cut costs, but you have to do that in a way that doesn't ruin you. Boeing have had a policy based on cutting costs, but at what final COST to BOEING? Nev

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joyce sacked the apprentices, & sent the maintenance oversea,s.

Saved NOTHING, as it went to His pocket.

spacesailor

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, facthunter said:

No "HUMAN" is worth those ridiculous figures

I would have to agree. 

There's got to be a limit to actually how much ONE person needs, to live a lavish and opulent life.

I think it just becomes a p!ssing contest between rival CEO's in the end.

There's a story around about how a group of business leaders in the US started competing against each other in the number of business jets each owned.....not to use, but just to have one more than the other...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one that I can think of makes my stomach retch more than  AJ. This is not about sexual identity, simply a wretched human being.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The highest Aussie I head, M bank CEO. $53million per annum,

Then the undisclosed Golden handshake to top it off.

spacesailor

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, only gets $81,840 a year.

 

But his stock increased in value by $40 BILLION in 2017.

 

Yet Amazon workers face some of the toughest and strictest working conditions there are, for not a huge wage.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as we keep our complaints on forums nothing will change. When we start dragging the greedy rich into the streets and beating them on the kidneys with big tree branches until they pee blood, things might change. But, having said that, I'm a greedy rich person to some while a lowly peasant to others. It's all too complicated. I'll have another drink instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want some good reading as regards the rampant corporate executive greed, up until just after the GFC - get a hold of the book, "Pigs at the Trough", by Adam Schwab.

The sad part is, nothing has changed since the book was written (in 2010). Only the names have changed, the salaries and bonuses and perks have just continued to increase, to astronomical levels.

These people all claim they are worth the money they are paid, because of the long hours they work, the stress they are under, and the family life they forgo.

But they seem to conveniently forget, a lot of low-paid people endure equally long hours, a great deal of job stress, and are shortchanged on a lot of their family life, too.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, onetrack said:

These people all claim they are worth the money they are paid, because of the long hours they work, the stress they are under, and the family life they forgo.

LOL, we all tried that. I can remember one time thinking I'd made it, I had hit the big time and had never thought about the people on the factory floor until a manager pointed out that they were earning more than me because the minute they worked past closing time they were still paid for every minute, with plenty of double time and some triple time while I would be out feeding the factory with orders sometimes working several straight 7 day weeks, or working on tenders until 4 am, grabbing a couple of hours sleep, then starting again.

 

The business theme being flooded these days is Execution of the Plan, and the bonuses are usually tied,up and down to direct results.

 

Directors are often looking for a foolproof win and pick a person with a track record of success, and offer him a percentage of profit. As I mentioned earlier relating to Qantas, if the person produces a huge profit and is paid a huge salary, from the shareholders point of view, it was worth it to get a decent dividend on their investment.

 

Socialists can never understand this principle, and people comparing companies locked into industries which can only ever produce around 0.5% on turnover, also have difficulties understanding other industries where exponential growth is possible.

 

Some examples of employees who have produced massive expansions for the companies they worked for are:

Alfred P Sloan, General Motors

Gunboat Smith, ACI

Eric Dunshea, Pacific Dunlop who was put in charge in 1968 and doubled earnings on assets by 1970. He died in 1972 but the momentum continued for a few years with this Australian company supplying tyres, rubber gloves, condoms and ice cream to the Australian people.

 

There's no doubt that some get lucky because of a trend in their industry, or because the hard work of their predecessor carried momentum beyond his departure, and there are many companies where directors have been fooled into ridiculous agreements.

 

And there are others who set themselves a modest salaray and fire themselves if there's a downturn.

 

If you want to see an example of a small group of people who extracted trillions of dollars from a zero start, read the book Dark Pools by Scott Patterson.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" it was worth it to get a decent dividend on their investment."

BUT. there's the rub !. 

The interest/dividend Is not increasing, only the perks for the upper management is increasing.

IAG profits are up,  Shares given to the exect's are up. Dividend to shareholders is 1% DOWN.

That's from their own information to share holders.

My own father, "Factory owner" was told by his lawyers to make himself & sons "Directors"

just to lower the Tax, and skim the profits down.

Also told to give the directors new cars every year. "Less profit" to hold the wage bill in check.

spacesailor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...