It is now common practice for many air travers to search the net for the best deals they can find, and why shouldn't they, it's a free country.

Yet, the likes of Qantas is not privy to the same luxury, as, when they make plans to get the best deal they can, they cop flack.

Is this fair?

Not even close to under standing that.
Think Quantas.
First thoughts, what comes to mind
SAFETY. Queensland and Northern Territory air services.
Australian, Kangaroo.
Let us now consider what I think/guess you want to say.
Competing air lines all of them, cost less to travel with.
Quantas costs more.
I think you have, sorry if I am wrong, those HOB NAILED BOOTS ON.
And march up and down the spine of the unionists involved, blaming the strike they had in place for the grounding.
Dreadful Pilots! had they not insisted in wearing RED TIES?
red blast it? COMRADES!
Pilots in red ties, the grounding soon stopped that lot.
Now yes let Quantas become Asian,force lower wages and less Australian jobs.
It in truth will happen.
Get closer Rechtub, whispering do not want those others to hear ok.
The laws/rules put in place to protect Quantas from overseas competition on its Australian/some international routes?
If we get rid of them we can drop prices even more.
What say we run a comp, you and me, what will replace the flying Kangaroo on the back?
Water Buffalo? Sacred Ibis is my pick it flys a long way comes here too.

great idea
i will apply it to bying my meat
who needs butchers..selling fat as meat

thanks clubbers
lets all by by cheapest cuts..dont support your local butcher
support the multinational..who does it by slave wages

'Slave wages' eh?

Here's an ad' for baggage handlers:

Baggage Handlers - QANTAS - view or apply
Employment service providers - 1445 - Rosebery NSW
Baggage handlers are needed for lifting 25kg repetitively to move and place baggage and parcels to carousel. Applicants must be fit and strong. Previous labouring or pick and pack experience is essential. $20.40 per hour day rate with early morning, late night, and weekend penalty rates. 24/7 rotating roster.
From JobSearch - 30+ days ago

I found a swag of articles on work injuries from lifting 32 kg bags in holds on knees, being forced to drop out of cargo hatches onto the tarmac and various other WHS imbecilities from QANTAS managers and owners in the hunt for profit.

Also, found a TWU flyer from about 2009 where they were complaining about shortages of staff forcing long overtime hours, hence wages higher than the $40k base rate.

Slave wages? QANTAS has slave wages and slave conditions right now.

But not for the greedy CEO, of course.

One involves deciding to do business with someone or not.

The other involves agreeing to do business with someone and making a contract- motivating that someone to make bookings and other transactions- and then turning around and reneging, leaving them thousands of dollars out of pocket- all because you wanted to blackmail someone.

That aside, were Qantas still a public company, this 'fair idea' wouldn't have even been considered, as they were in a position of responsibility to the country.

I was just musing after reading some of these posts just how much times have changed.

I started as snork (apprentice) at Qantas Empire Airways, as it was back then, in 1958.

My first year take home pay was less than $10 a week. I lived in a boarding house with no financial support. I washed cabs after hours to survive.

I graduated 5 years later. My graduation certificate being handed to me with congratulations and a handshake from Sir Hudson Fysh, one of the founders of Qantas.

It was a moment of pride. One moment remembered.

I know things have to change and I have been part of the changes here and there but I feel something has been lost along the way in this country of ours. I thought I was lucky to be where I was all those years ago, struggle that it was.

Just a comment.

SD

Some make me laugh with thier attempts to stretch the truth.

Take shaggy dogs take on things.

Firstly, there was no such thing as $10 back in 1958, however, if he was in fact on 10 quid, he would be today's equilivent of a CEO.

What most fail to relize is that despite what may or may not be in the qantas rule book, they do have the right to cease business, and they may well do that.

Now if this happens, how are the unions and striking workers going to help those who were not complaining, as they to will have lost thier jobs.

There are those who suggest the CEO is greedy, but greed goes both ways.

Business in this country is changing and all these unionists he'd best get a grip on that fact before more businesses leave our shores.

I wait in suspension to see what this incompitent fool of a government can come up with to resolve this issue.

Finally, find that cheap flight, cheap accommodation or even cheap food stuffs, but at you own peril as running a business here is becoming a case of risks out weighing gains.

But you were warned, you just chose to laugh it off instead, so who,s laughing now, as with yet another I'll informed prediction, I can assure you this is just the beginning, so brace yourselves.

Butcher,

Thank you for your response but my post was not intended to raise any hostile discussion. My apologies if it has raised your ire for any particular reason. I have to say your posts are of some interest.

First year wages were 5 pound a week when I commenced with Qantas.. Take home pay was 4 pounds 17 and sixpence as I recall.

When I finished I was on 21 pounds a week or thereabouts.

Not sure what Hudson Fysh was paid. He didn't tell me and I do not think it was common knowledge anyway.

You actually missed my point as I was not making any comparison to CEOs wages or any other persons salaries or wages then or now.

I was referring to a different mind set as to then and now across the board.

University education was rare back then. To secure an apprenticeship with Qantas was seen as really something and the low wages paid were accepted as your share of the cost of the extensive training. In my particular case I had been raised in an institution from a very early age and to secure this apprenticeship was a golden opportunity to really make a good start in life. Hence I thought I was extremely lucky to get such a start. Being on your own in Sydney at age 15 has the effect of making one grow up rather quickly.

I do have a good memory and even at this time of life am still undertaking tertiary study and am carrying out historical research and writing.

It helps one to keep an open mind and to assess things from all angles in an attempt to keep ones personal bias out of the subject in hand.

Take it easy.

SD

Oh rehctub, spare the nationalism and patriotism please.

This world you support is a 'free trade' world of capitalism first, and everything else second.

If QANTAS is unable to manage itself, it should close down.

Look at the investment they have, and the paltry profits before and after tax for a start.

Better off with the money in an ING cash deposit I'd say.

I am flying with Singapore instead of QANTAS, and the difference in price when we go, in peak season, will be a matter of $100 or so, so it is not price.

I get a better baggage allowance, and a better service all round.

Airlines are a 'service' industry, and they have to compete. QANTAS does not try to compete.

Now, the pilots union chap was on Lateline last night. He was asked why Virgin, where pilots get less than QANTAS, had no trouble from the pilots. His response was that money is not everything and that Virgin engage with their staff, unlike QANTAS, who ignore them as much as possible.

Surely, basic management these days?

Even Henry Ford, a real fascist and capitalist of extreme proportions knew very well that he had to pay well and provide good conditions, which he did for the times.

He even created funded and ran trade schools to ensure he had fit skilled people, something the mining giants might like to revisit before moaning about skill shortages.

Paddy O'Joyce has a lot to learn, if he wants to keep flying our kangaroo on his planes.

Good points SD.

Life was indeed different.

But, during the Hawke years the bosses and capitalists said they wanted big changes.

No longer did they want permanent employees, casuals was the way to go.

No longer did they want the IR system, the market was the way to go.

No longer did they want tariffs and barriers, the free market was the way to go.

No longer did they want factories, high tech and imports was the way to go.

No longer did they want government businesses, you know, the ones who took in all the apprentices for the lazy private sector to pinch for cheap, and that's how we were gifted such talents as now runs QANTAS.

So, we have all those demands met, and the capitalists and bosses are still upset.

Yep, rechtub,...I reckon Qantas should employ you....and they could replace the kanga on the tail with a picture of a petite bourgeoisie butcher waggling his finger at us. The new slogan could be, "You Were Warned".

Stop griping will ya....you live in a fortunate country in fortunate times (historically speaking).

Blue Cross,

Things have to change, we cannot help that, but it is easy to lose ones way in the process.

I have worked on a contract basis most of my life negotiating my own salary and conditions. Even so I kept my union membership going for many years even though it was never utilised personally in any way. Some sort of loyalty I guess from my early days. I did as a manager speak to them on numerous occasions to find the best way to tackle a problem and always found them helpful.

I guess it depends a lot on how you approach a situation as to how cordial the discussion can be.

Anyway enough from me. Said more than I planned to. Back to work.

Take it easy.

SD

Stop griping will ya....you live in a fortunate country in fortunate times (historically speaking).

Sorry, we did!

We all want cheaper, well all want better value for money and we all want job security and better wages, more flexibility and better conditions.

Sorry, but you can't have it all, something has to give.

Rechtub You are a fair dinkum whynger. A knocker, a person that can see no right, except your personal views. If Qantas does not have the necessary skills to fix the row internally, that is for the shareholders to work through, it is a private company. If qantas was to go off shore, it would be to cut costs in areas other than baggage. So why does something have to be political, it is up to qantas.

579- it very much IS political, because Qantas would show the life-cycle of a formerly public-owned asset post-privatization:
1-First higher costs and cuts to service
2-Then cutting staff and taking underserved pay-rises as the asset becomes less functional
3-Extorting the country for more money
4-Get bailed out, and simply renege on your promise to use it to restore the asset, and instead skip offshore and let it collapse.

If anything, it's simply (another) warning of what happens when we let public assets be sold off to the kind of uncompetitive scoundrels that would covet a public asset as their own cash-spinner in the first place.

Shaggy Dog I understood your first post and that your pay was 5 pounds then not Rechtubs lurch away from truth.
I understand your pride in achievement and the work place you then had.
Changes see a airline quite different not one we own.
As a trade unionist Delegate and official I liked to be a good worker, I worked hard and had pride in both my job and achievements.
About the time you spoke of changes took place that sped up the work place and changed government owned to such as Quantas.
We know, we may not like it but know, Quantas, to survive is becoming quite different that it is even now.
We deep down, know it must.
And we know Australian jobs will go.
I ask this, our super conservatives/anti workers do you want Quantas workers to work for Asian wages now?
Are you willing to see Australian jobs exported forever.
Then can you not see, not know? understand QUANTAS grounded its fleet world wide.
AS AN ACT of militancy in IR? because the only union action under way was pilots wearing RED TIES.
Abbott, be warned, is pulling the wool over this country's eyes, miss using truth, lying,
Australia MUST consider letting other airlines fly on all routes in and out of this country.
Clearly Quantas used its protection to take MILITANT ACTION.
Unions doing such would be hung drawn and quartered.
Nothing Sacred about this Ibis to be Asian airline.

How, pray tell, will Qantas go 'offshore'?
By virtue of the fact that it would even land in Australia would require locally-employed people to do services for the plane- and it only gets customers because it employs Australian cabin staff on-board the plane. If it were to do services between cities, there is no chance it could use 'foreign labor'.
And I should point out that it's hardly looking after its domestic labor anyway- and cut flights- so the unions and employees have nothing to lose by complaining.

Of course, I INVITE Qantas to leave our shores;
In doing so, it can relinquish its underserved taxpayer-funded monopoly on Australian air transit and open up to more competition.
Better still, we can replace it with a fresh public airline- like what Qantas used to be (back when it was actually good and actually had a name across the world).

This is about one thing, buying up Qantas as cheap as possible then moving it on.

Have a look at the value of the Australian $ one year prior to Billiton buying BHP in 2001 and one year after. In a nutshell the dollar was around the 80's a year before and at the 80's a year after, but it hit a historical low of 49 and fifties during the month the sale went through, it has not sunk that low since.

Belly,

Thanks for your comments.

Just from a history point of view the Licensed Engineers union or assoc was formed whilst I was an apprentice at Qantas. I worked for or with a number of engineers who later became some of its early officials.

In later years when I moved into management with other organisations it did make the contact with the union easy. Whenever I needed information or advice I was remembered as one of their ex apprentices and always found any discussions laid back and without any dramas.

The old story of not what you know but who you know I guess.

Just for info my bro is a ham operator. I still have my CASA/DCA radio operators license. I learned to fly many years ago but gave it away when I came to the conclusion there had to be a cheaper way of frightening the bejasus out of myself than flying.

Take it easy.

SD

Belly, want it or not, we are going to have to work for Asian wages, there is no question about it. Once the mining boom quietens down we have nothing to offer that is any better than what they offer, & in many cases it is less good.

Just think;

We are no smarter.

We are no longer better educated, in fact we are becoming less well educated.

We don't like to work as hard as they do.

We don't even feed ourselves now.

We, with the Kiwis, are a small group of people in an out of the way, Ar's end cul de sac of the world. If we sank tomorrow, it may be weeks before anyone noticed.

We have a third world economy, with a first world public service, propped up by mining, & our prospect of becoming the poor white trash of Asia are very Bl00dy good.

We have these ex government enterprises, overmanned by a factor of 4, with staff over paid by 2. They were sold off when they were loosing too much money for government to handle. Bankruptcy for them is just a matter of time, even with drastic staff cuts, & brilliant management, if we could find any of that. If government monopoly could not make them viable, how can competition?

Then we get idiots like Blue calling $40 an hour slave wages, god help us. If we don't start getting our act into gear it will be more like $40 a damn day, & we may not be worth that much.

We are sailing into a cyclone, with our hatches wide open. If we don't start getting ready for trouble soon, we won't have anyone but ourselves to blamewhen we sink.

I would love to see Qantas a top airline again. I have no idea how you make it so, but I do know it sure isn't by fighting silly wars within the company.

Hasbeen,

Glad I am not mixed up in it. There are some dreadful problems in front of many involved and at this stage there does not appear to be any real solutions that will make everybody happy.

The problems as you say are Australia wide and it is going to require some wise heads and a lot of pain to resolve the issues in front of the country.

Sadly the wise heads do not appear to exist in any numbers especially in the ranks of our politicians. Across the board they would have to be worst assembly I have ever seen.

Take it easy.

SD

Shaggy you have obviously seen it from both sides, as I have.

I have seen that the wages we paid to skilled people were far too high for us to earn any money employing them.

But I have also seen that it would be very hard to live on those wages, even in a regional centre, let alone a capital city.

It is obvious we have to bring the cost of housing down, but how, & what happens to those who still owe todays prices.

I think I'll stop now, before the head ache becomes too strong.

Belly, the unions may not have been on strike, but their on again, off again approach to strikes had it's intended effect, and that was to cause major disruption and uncertainty within the traveling public.

When you have union thugs, who are actually leaders, saying don't fly Qantas anymore, that is the lowest of lows,so they did worse than go on strike, as they caused the same effect, yet still got paid, and that's wrong.

Their intent was to harm the brand and all our PM could do was watch until the 11th hour then claim credit for fixing the problem she allowed to fester.

The worst part is that the laws that she herself drafted were considered unworkable.

Brace yourselves for a huge pay cut or no jobs at all.

It's been brewing, it's just that you need to be on the other side of the fence to see the warning signs.

And don't expect the government to bail you out, cause they have pissed all our money away one one disaster after another.

All labor voters should take a bow!

Rechtub, please, brace your self, not me,an airline pilot Quantas one, can leave the industry take up a job in mining and be rich.
Mines are full of ex police, office workers, and people who have done the life change.
And we still can not get enough.
Carpenters, bridge form work carpenters, not in unions, being offered not striking for, massive wages supply and demand mate.
NOT UNIONS, we will never work for Asian wages.
Quantas held its passengers and this country to RANSOM.
Rechtub MILITANCY! we help that firm, we reserve some trips for them.
Australia, should without ANY DELAY! introduce foreign airlines , free them all, to fly on every flight/area we have to protect our country from Militant unions and firms.
You ignore a crime, one you would scream about,if unions did it.
'Are you fair dinkum mate?

*Quantas held its passengers and this country to RANSOM*

Hehe Belly, sorry mate, but that is straight out of union school.

Fact is the union thugs were admitting to "bleed Qantas slowly",
or to the tune of 15 million $ a week, with their guerilla tactics.
Qantas put up with it for months. You can't run an airline like
that, people won't book tickets and Sheldon knew that.

The sticking point was not wages, but job certainty. In a competitive
market, where consumers decide, the only job certainty is with the
Govt. This whole thing badly backfired on Sheldon and his mates.

If its good enough for unions to hold the country to ransom, then
its good enough for companies.

There may be collusion between Abbott and Qantas. A judicial enquiry may be in order.

Its official- nobody making the "Asian wages" scare cam actually substantiate how a domestic airline "goes offshore"- or for that matter why Qantas was better sold than owned by the country.

Simple logistics- either Qantas would still operate a domestic service, and need to employ Australians, or it would stop all domestic services, and somebody else (hopefully a public-owned airline) will take its place and hire the workers instead.

Also, nobody put a gun to Joyce's head and forced him to keep his payrise, or for that matter even forced him to cut all services. He willingly did that himself, so pretending this entirely rests with the unions is slack-jawed silliness.

*Also, nobody put a gun to Joyce's head and forced him to keep his payrise, or for that matter even forced him to cut all services*

Of course they did Hazza, costing the airline 15 million a week.
Perhaps it just went over your head as to how they were doing it.

Just good old guerilla tactics, " we will strike, we won't strike"
which means huge costs to the airline, cancellation of flights,
cancellation of bookings as people want certainty when they book
their tickets, all at no cost to the unions.

No CEO can afford to let his company go broke with a proverbial
gun to his head. Not one worth his salt.

To recover, Qantas needed certainty. They used the only way they
had of guaranteeing that, under the Fair Work Act.

Yabby,

One has to ask the question as to why Qantas has for so long been unable to harmonise its relationship with its workers.
Perhaps there's a fatal flaw in its management strategy?

(Btw...what have you guys done with all the women on this forum? They seem to have gone AWOL. It's a big ask to expect me to keep you all in line : )

Poirot, the fight between management and workers at Qantas has
gone on for years. Both sides are at fault for that, I am the first
to admit that. It goes back to when the place was Govt owned and
a monopoly.

Its a bit like an old relationships, when you try to rewarm it.
People bring up things that happened 10-20 years ago. You said, you
did etc. Easier sometimes to start afresh. That is probably why
its easier for Virgin, with a new company, new ideas, people are
more open to change. Plenty of old Ansett pilots now fly for
Cathay, Emirates etc.

As to the women, well being spring, perhaps they are spring cleaning
or do other things common in spring :)

Or perhaps they just miss Anti to fight with, I think he was banned
for a while.

Poirot,

Possibly an excess of testosterone has driven the fair sex to find more convivial company !

SD

What ever happened is now in the past and all this blame gaming will not change that.

Governments, unions, workers and Qanta now need to look to the future.

No if I were Qantas I would be in a non negotiable position, period!

My position would be this.

I would propose to the government, not the unions, that either we pay the same rates as our competitors, or, we leave.

The government then, along with the unions have two choices.

1. Wages get reduced.
2. The government subsidizes Qantas so they can stay.

Either way, the government looses as they can't save one business and ignore all others.

Furthermore, they have taken away the rights of many workers to negotiate a deal that best suits them, often when money is not the motivator.

So in essense, the government, by making their changes to the IR system, have made a rod for thier own backs and they have no way out.

It comes back to the same issues, if a person wants to work for X and X may not just be about money and, the employer is happy with that, why does it have to be ok,d by the government.

Most things in business are negotiable, exept wages and conditions and this is what is driving th e Qantas dispute.

Jus remember, we can all help save Aussie jobs, by buying only Aussie made and using Aussie owned and staffed services, bu it comes at a price.

Joe average is just not prepared to pay that price.

Well, nor are the likes of Qantas

Pay the same price as their competitors, With baggage handlers qantas is still going to need them, in melb no matter where they are based. Your grossly overestimated wages of baggage handlers, does nothing for the argument. It is up to qantas to resolve their own disputes. if they have the capacity to do so.

Poirot true! Lexi is back hope some of the others return.
Well yabby my answer is clear stop propping up Quantas.
Australia needs another airline on every internal route.
Open them up let the best win.
you can just bet if workers had shut it down you would change your tune
Joyce is a paid hit man.

grossly overestimated wages of baggage handlers,
579,
give us the real figures then ? A Virgin 777 FO gets 115 grand, how much does Qantas 767 FO get ? Bet it's a lot more. 7 years ago a Qantas 747 jump seat jockey was on 85 grand, ages before he got his grubby little fingers on the yoke. They are overpaid, it's as simple as that. So are many professionals especially those on the public payroll.
When we get told people want more money then please tell us how much they're on already.
We want to know if we should support them or not, after all we're paying.

579, Qantas don't need us, if anything , we need them.

Remember, just being here is costing them 200$Mil per year.

Now as belly says, let others in.

So, others will either use outside staff or, face the same fate that Qantas have.

So, why not keep Qantas and work out how to save the local jobs.

Forget about a pay rise, cause it's simply not going to happen, work on how th workers can get the same pay and Qantas can save the money they need to.

That's the cruts of the matter.

We either find a solution, or they go.

A reasonable wage would be better than no wage.

*Australia needs another airline on every internal route.
Open them up let the best win.*

Belly, last time I checked, Virgin could fly anywhere they wanted.
But no airline will fly routes which are not profitable or doesent
have the numbers. Then of course you could fly Tiger Airways,
or Jetstar, or a few of the smaller airlines.

One of the disputed points in all this is that the Qantas pilots
union wants to determine how much Jetstar pilots should be paid.
Well Jetstar is based in Singapore and flies all over Asia. That
is frankly none of their business.

Of course I protest about union thuggery. Gawd, we got some long
faces from the ACTU thugs, when for once they got it back. So what
if Qantas planned for the possibility? Every good CEO has plan A,B,C and
D, as potential strategies.

Joyce is there to turn the airline around, despite the unions and
Govt being against him. He only gets his bonus if he can do so,
no mean challenge. For the last few years, Qantas has largely
existed for the benefit of employees and the convenience of passengers.
Never mind the huge numbers of mums and dads who
believed the spin, when they paid their money to the Govt. They
have been screwed all the way. If Joyce can change that, he's
worth every penny. Luckily I knew about all this and did not touch
Qantas shares with a barge pole, when it came to my super fund.
But I do have some empathy for those who got done over by the
system. Lots of those people don't earn an airline pilots wage.

Baggage handler starter $ 26,255 10 to 19 yrs exp $45,458
Flight attendant $ 30,309 to $ 67,936 on exp
Airline pilot [Jet] copilot flight engineer. $ 42,807 to $ 173,020

No Yabby, they're really not; Joyce was perfectly free to act in many other ways, but chose to extort instead.
And Joyce sabotaging his own company just to make a stand-off with them- rather than turn back his pay rise no less- demonstrates he does NOT care about the company at all, as he is quite happy to endanger it for his own personal interests.

And Rehctub you are not answering the question;
How does Qantas "go offshore"?
Do they immediately terminate their services around Australia, and only offer them in some other country?

If so, another airline will take their place, and we will have all the workers ready to work for them instead.

We definitely don't need Qantas, they need us (to be gullible and not shop for better deals).
We only think we need them because we are so used to catching Qantas that we are afraid of giving other airlines a shot (except me).

And I will be lending an ear to any party that advocates creating a new national airline, or re-nationalizing Qantas and having Joyce thrown out.

*Joyce was perfectly free to act in many other ways*

Err Hazza, a gun was put to his head. Agree to our terms or keep
losing 15 million bucks a week. Which would you have chosen?

As to his salary, its neither here nor there. Firstly he'll only
get his bonus, if he can turn the airline around, which would be
a welcome breath of fresh air for mum and dad shareholders who
believed the spin. Secondly, even if Joyce worked for nothing,
it would work out to around 2$ per employee per week. Do you really
think that the 3 unions would have been convinced to go back to
work for 2 bucks a week extra?

The decisions by qantas and others will have to be looked into. I do not think joice could have come up with that on his own.
Other channels were there, why so extreme, i believe he had help.

579,
cheers for that. I must admit I didn't expect those low figures.

KH, to answer your question, how does Australia been come into the equation?

We have a pidly little 22 million people, which is not even worth worrying about unless they can operate under realistic IR conditions.

Now as for another to take thier place, yea right, pull the other one.

Many businesses will follow thier lead a it is getting to the stage where business risks are being out weighed by rewards.

Don't agree, fine, watch this space.

You see wages are just the half of it. Once you add super, workers comp, sickles, leave loading, pay roll tax, gov red tape, this blows you out of the water.

The fact of the matter is, that unions pushed and Qantas acted.

I bets if they had their time again, most of the workers and some union thugs would not go there.

HArdly Yabby- he could have rejected his pay rise, not threatened to cut jobs, or simply not have acted, so that any eventual stalling of the company would have been the union's fault.
The fact that he would let this happen- let alone actually do it himself, proves that he doesn't care at all about the business, and is more concerned about his own greed than he is about keeping the company going.

Or better yet- Qantas was never privatized, and neither Joyce nor the Unions could screw with it.

And Rehctub, you avoided answering the question, so I will ask again- how does Qantas go "offshore"?
And how would an airline not take it's place? We have plenty of foreign competitors who I'm sure would love to take their place.
Or we could have the government create a new airline (the same way Qantas was created). Anyone who would need to operate domestic routes in particular would have a hard time hiring foreigners.

*he could have rejected his pay rise,*

The devil is in the details Hazza, which you need to understand to
debate this topic. His actual cash payment is 12% less. He'll get
his big bonus in a year IF he can turn Qantas around. That is
unlikely, but we will see.

*not threatened to cut jobs*

He simply announced his plans for the company. Decrease international
flights, which were losing 200 million a year. Increase Jetstar
etc, which made 500 million. A 3% cut in Australian staff numbers
is hardly a tragedy and something that any CEO has to decide.

*or simply not have acted, so that any eventual stalling of the company would have been the union's fault.*

Hehe Hazza, no wonder you are not CEO material, with a CEO wage,
with that kind of attitude. If he'd done that, it should have
meant instant dismissal, as the company was losing 15 million a
week. Blaming unions for sending Qantas broke would have helped
whom?

CEOs are paid high wages, as they are people who have to make
tough decisions, not just cop out as you suggest. Shareholders
deserve a return on their money, just as you deserve rent, if
you were to rent out your house. At the moment Qantas might well
be better off selling its planes and putting the money into a
bank account at 6%. It would be more profitable then flying planes
around and paying staff a fortune, only to be threatened by unions.

The unions are also free to buy the company in the market. Its
shares are dirt cheap and mums and dads who trusted the Govt marketing
spin at the time, have lost their shirts.

"CEOs are paid high wages, as they are people who have to make
tough decisions, "
And in Joyce's case, simply reducing services, increasing costs, cutting corners and implementing a process of palming off customers onto other airlines under the context of booking a Qantas flight.

The only actions by Qantas that can potentially be traced to him under the context of policy- have all diminished Qantas as either a viable airline service, or an employer.
If anything, people should base their protests against him on his crap performance alone- even without the unions trying to interfere.

Face it, Joyce's "CEO material" is hardly that of a competitive corporation, but a second-rate businessman whose only ability is coveting public-owned assets to milk and extort with- exactly the same as every other dodgy company that managed to acquire a former public-owned company.
The only reason Qantas became so bad to begin with in order to be threatened by foreign airlines' competition was because his poor policymaking has lost too many customers to his competitors; and because he was unable to solve it, he could only come up with bandaid solutions that angered his employees and the union backers.

Market-savvy, competent and competitive CEOs create companies and compete- mugs and swindlers who can't compete and can't manage a company simply try to buy out a public entity (that usually has a monopoly), and exploit it until it gradually diminishes.

Which do you think Joyce fits under?
And no, in case you were wondering I don't support the unions either- just another corrupt mob little better than Joyce.
Again- if Qantas had never been solved, none of this would have happened.

To put it another way, CEOs only deserve a high salary when their privately-run company gains a large enough profit from good business strategies- not for gaining possession of companies and assets that don't belong to them, and mismanaging them so badly they escalate into a crisis.

*Which do you think Joyce fits under?*

Quite simple. Joyce got the job because he had the runs on the
board. He ran Jetstar and turned it into a profitable business
for Qantas.

Qantas has all sorts of problems, but many can be laid down to
Geoff Dixon, not Joyce. Shareholders clearly approve of Joyce's
strategy, they reelected the board at the last AGM, where it
was clearly laid out. Just like it is your business how
you invest your money, it is their business what they do with
theirs.

*Again- if Qantas had never been solved, none of this would have happened.*

I assume that you mean "sold". Well don't blame Qantas, blame
politicians who sold it. It was their decision and the people
elected them. Democracy still rules, last time I checked.

Fact is consumers have been the big winners from much cheaper
airline fares. The old Qantas will simply ripping off Australian
consumers to bankroll a cushy lifestyle for all concerned, as
do most Govt run enterprises

Her are a few facts
Allen Joyce will be paid $5 million, but only if he meets targets.

Meanwhile, Hugh Jackman earned $20 million for one movie, Harry Kewell earned $10.5 million for playing soccer, ACDC earned $130 million as an Australian band.

Now,as for those assisting in low skilled jobs, do you think they would have been paid up to $85 K for thier efforts?

Why don't those who hate qantas whinge about these people?

Yabby;
"Democracy still rules, last time I checked."
I don't recall a referendum on the issue; or even an election promise to sell Qantas. And to answer your question I DO blame the politicians who voted to sell it off, and stopped trusting every individual one of them who did. In fact, I'm quite certain that the Democrats lost all their votes at that point.

And your interesting take on Qantas prices is interesting if it weren't the exact opposite; Qantas flights used to be cheap as chips- especially with the Frequent Flier program; but they became so expensive I ended my subscription. Not to mention that the airline is worse managed now- in the past I never had a problem when catching a Qantas flight- my last flight however was a fiasco.
For that matter, I don't see how being in charge of JetStar, an even worse airline than Qantas is now- is a virtue of Joyce- especially as the deterioration of Qantas over the years is evident.

And Rehctub- I answered that exact same question last time, and you never answered it.
Nobody is forced to see Hugh Jackman's movies, and Hugh Jackman isn't mismanaging a former Australian asset.
People are forced to rely on airlines to get around the country, and as Qantas has a government-established monopoly, people are thus likely forced to do business with Qantas or one of their branch airlines for domestic flights.

In other words, people are angry at Joyce for abusing a former public asset for personal gain.
People are only rightfully angry at Jackman for being stupid enough to pay to see one of his movies.
The only exception is taking part in Baz Lurhman's "Australia" flop- getting a huge tax donation.

*I don't recall a referendum on the issue*

No need to Bazz, we don't hold referdums on most Govt decisions.
That is not how our particular form of democracy works. You'd have
to move to Switzerland for that, about the only country in the world
that I can think of.

*Qantas flights used to be cheap as chips*

Not so Bazz. You can fly to Europe now for less money then you
paid 20 years ago. Flights between Perth-Sydney in the bad old
days were around 1500$, nearly as much as European flights. Now
they are at bargain prices.

Qantas has no monopoly. Anyone can start an airline in Australia
and fly it where they want. Just yesterday we had another startup
on the news, with 7 planes. Problem is, its not so easy running
airlines, so many close down again. If your particular regional
branch is not well serviced, its perhaps because they can't make
any money out of it, so companies don't bother to fly those routes.

* For that matter, I don't see how being in charge of JetStar, an even worse airline than Qantas is now- is a virtue of Joyce*

Ah but Jetstar is highly profitable, so clearly other consumers
disagree with you, for it operates in Asia and has plenty of
competition there. So the bigger picture says that Joyce does
in fact have the runs on the board, even if you, a single individual
happen to disagree.

Most Australians are clearly happy that in real terms, airtickets have
become cheaper and cheaper over the years, so people are flying alot
more then they ever did

"No need to Bazz, we don't hold referdums on most Govt decisions."
Obviously there IS a need, if this kind of travesty occurs when we sell something.

"Not so Bazz."
Actually yes they were. Especially if you used FF (which you were supposed to). In the years immediately before the selloffs I could easily afford business class seats with my FF points every few months. Of course, the upkeep costs sky-rocketed, and the value of what I placed went down, and the whole deal became so extortionate I had to drop it and terminate my business with Qantas entirely.

"Qantas has no monopoly. Anyone can start an airline in Australia "
Excellent- in that case, my earlier point that Qantas was replacable if it did go offshore was indeed correct.

"Ah but Jetstar is highly profitable, so clearly other consumers
disagree with you, "
Hardly; Jetstar are simply the only airline available in many domestic routes, are an airline that Qantas offsets passengers to (Despite buying a Qantas ticket) and likely they are the only 'familiar' airline going to overseas countries in a post-Garuda climate where Australian passengers have an aversion to foreign airlines.
And for that matter, how many airlines do we have running domestically in Australia? About four- Qantas and Virgin which are extremely expensive, Tiger which is garbage and has been slammed by the media, and Jetstar which is merely not as bad as Tiger, but not as expensive as the other two. Simply put, people are simply forced to use it if they are to fly to a certain destination at all, and are simply faced with a cheap but crap airline that hasn't had as much negative coverage as Tiger.

As for cheaper- considering the gigantic drop in quality of the service and the low probability that booking a Qantas ticket will result in a Qantas flight, I now pay even cheaper for foreign airlines, who provide all services. So in short, I personally will stand to lose nothing if Qantas floundered like Ansett did, and some real competition filled its place.

Fair enough Hazza, as a typical consumer, you want a Rolls Royce
service at a "Great Wall of China" price. I remind you however
that the airline business is one of the most competitive businesses
on the planet, with an average margin of 1.2%. You might be waiting
a long time.

Neither I nor anyone else has complained about Qantas going offshore.
Its the unions which are fighting it all the way, its the very reason
why they held the company to ransom. They want guarantees for their
35'000 jobs, something which no company in a free market can provide.

*a post-Garuda climate where Australian passengers have an aversion to foreign airlines.*

They do? You could have fooled me lol. Only 20% of international
flights are now Qantas, as people fly SQ, Emirates, Etihad, Cathay,
and all the rest. These airlines have new planes, the latest in
technology to entertain passengers, low costs, they are creaming it.
Qantas simply can't compete, with their high cost base. That is
why the company has to restructure, which is what these strikes are
all about.

Air travel costs have indeed dropped dramatically, since the bad old
days of Govt ownership and regulation. But people have short memories
and your quibble seems to be about frequent flyer points, rather then
the big picture facts. Like many, you want something for nothing.
It doesent work that way, I am afraid.

The unions still don't get it. Their intention might be to preserve
jobs, but the reality is that they are destroying jobs. If Qantas
goes under, the employees have the most to lose. The shareholders
have already lost their shirts.

Sadly few of our union leaders have the foggiest about actually
running a business.

No YAbby, I don't want "something for nothing" as I was paying for my FFs and tickets, I specifically want something without being ripped off, or offset to something I did not pay for. That is Qantas of today.

Yet somehow, both with FF AND direct ticket sales, I always managed to afford Qantas tickets on a frequent basis back when it was nationalized, but now do not. Not to mention I got far better service and more reliable flights in the 'bad old days' than the last few times I have flown with them.

Nowadays, plenty of other airlines (not Australian) can provide that kind of service for a better price; and if that's too hard for Qantas' management to handle (especially now we know how much revenue they personally claim before deciding where cost-cutting occurs- mostly in their service)- then that is their own problem for not being competitive, and accepting that as a private entity the free market leaves me better options.
And the fact that 20% of international flights are with Qantas shows that there is still a 20% aversion to other (better) airlines.

As for the 'going offshore'- you should ask Rehctub, as he is making quite a strong point about why this needs to be averted, and I was referring to him of why it was inconsequential for Australia- including pointing out the same point as you that another airline will take its place.

Again, all I'm pointing out that Joyce is as much- if not even more guilty as the unions for both trying to sabotage Qantas for their personal gains, and this wouldn't have happened at all (Along with the extortionate practices we have seen in the past few years) had we not have sold the airline.

Hazza, Rehctub is simply pointing out that Australians claim to
want jobs. Those jobs might not matter to you, for its not your
job thats on the line, but they matter to those Australians affected.

Rehtub points out that they won't keep their jobs unless unions
change their ways. He makes a valid point.

As to the FF programme, Qantas runs it because it makes them money
and attracts far more lucrative passengers then it scares away.
Qantas dominates the business travel section. Business pays higher
rates then bargain seeking holiday makers. So people gain FF points
on their business trips, use them for their personal travel. But
at the end of the day, the FF has to be factored into the price
of tickets. Qantas might lose your business, but they gain the
business of all those big corporate customers, which is where their
profits are.

So fly Virgin.

What you could or could not afford 20 years ago hardly matters, for
other variables in your life might have changed to affect your
financial position. What cannot be denied however is that since
deregulation, air travel in real terms has become dramatically
cheaper for all air travellers.

If the Govt had not sold the airline and deregulated the skies,
you would now be paying substantially more for airline travel then
you do now.

"What cannot be denied however is that since
deregulation, air travel in real terms has become dramatically
cheaper for all air travellers."

Actually it can be denied- even a few years before the selloff I flew Qantas and the prices were very cheap- for BUSINESS class (few hundred return domestic).
As it stands now, costs are cut by cutting workers (hence debunking the 'maintaining workers' argument, as the whole reason the unions got involved was due to the proposal to axe 1000 jobs). Yet manages to remain at not much a different price, and often much higher (except FF membership). Not to mention plenty of shareholders have not received any revenue in years.

So, if its not about low prices, and its not about 'saving jobs', or shareholders, and if the CEO talked some gullible shareholders into giving himself a gigantic payrise a day before he cuts all services (risking the airline an costing money)- but "forgets" to block customers from buying tickets- what is it about now?

*Actually it can be denied- even a few years before the selloff I flew Qantas and the prices were very cheap- for BUSINESS class (few hundred return domestic).*

All you have proven so far Hazza, is that you have a flawed memory.

For of course before the selloff, it was Australian Airlines and
Ansett. All Qantas flights were for international flights only.
They were not allowed to carry passengers domestically.

Flying Australia to Europe is today much cheaper then it was 20 years
ago, the same with flying Perth Sydney etc. The evidence is clear,
as is your flawed memory.

Workers in the airline industry have probably increased, as with
increased affordability, so many more people are now flying. An
overseas holiday used to be a bit of a luxury, today its common
practise.

Australian consumers have been the big winners with deregulation
of the airlines, as they have with dropping tariff walls.

Your suggestion to reregulate the industry and make it Govt owned
once again, would frankly be a disaster for Australian consumers.