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?