Litespeed

So true plenty of popped cyl heads and cracked cases on a lot of continentals that i worked on. Lycs seemed to fair a little better but they seemed to fall short on the ancillaries. As with all things the man is the biggest problem.

Lots of horror stories out there for Conti/lycosaurus over the last 70 years.

Andy

at close of business today market capitalisation was $3.53 billion.

So looking at headline figures $558million is a nice return- but the devil is in dodgy figures.

The market thinks in broad detail: as the cost of sunday's fiasco unfoldsthe glow from union busting is wearing off.http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=QAN.AX&ql=0

Astounding arrogance and egomania.

Without been on the inside and all the advantages it brings broad brush strokes is probably as good as it gets.

If the shareholders want to and exercise the power- they can do what pleases them, within the law.

I assume that the shareholders have revolted completely and sought change. That includes the board for they and the CEO are considered the problem.

Generally shareholders appoint the board and the board appoints the CEO. The only way to force a board to get rid of a CEO is to sack the board. Bar that they can ignore your advice or protests.

I like you telling him off..

Nasty set of talons on him.

Turboplanner,

You have made a very long and imaginative possible future.

But you did ask for suggestions on the basis, I had just been appointed CEO by the shareholders. The only possible way this would have happened is if the shareholders called a extraordinary meeting. At the meeting they sack the board and CEO and appoint a new CEO- in this hypothetical, that would be me.

So this means as CEO, I would work with the shareholders and elect a suitably structured board.

On that basis, I have worked.

So the support of the board and shareholders were given.

If read carefully in my replies, you will note the workforce was integral to the whole process and helped make the decisions. I think having two board members from staff, a active and motivated workforce who even vote on change, with a share in the action would have indicated such.

In this hypothetical, it is absolutely assumed that any changes were the best option using the collective wisdom available.

To think that return on equity, P/E ratios, targets and other goals do not matter is wrong. Just because I did not mention them, does not mean they don't exist.

I think you have assumed a totally different scenario to what I indicated.

Litespeed

excerpts of this video was posted on brisbanetimes. interesting

 

That's one hell of a bad ass bird, mean damn mean.

Sure does,

Physics is a bitch like that.

F=MA

sorry repeat post- bloody puter did it

I will start with a reply to Andy,

As you stated some airlines are uncompetitve- but to think Qantas group is in that bag is just bullshit from the Joyce crew and fairy land stuff.

Qantas made a profit of $558 million before tax and offsets last financial year. All in a year full of disasters natural and self inflicted which cost approx $300 million in profits.

So yes Qantas has a pretty nice Profit and Loss statement, I have read it , have you?

At no stage did I say Jetstar was not going to compete on price, it is Qantas that is less price sensitive.

Qantas International does need to lift its game, and also has the most potential for getting back market share.

CEO

Litespeed

Better to hit an eagle than a turkey LS.I hit a flock of galahs coming in to land at Cootamundra in a Cherokee. One hit the nose leg and lost interest, one hit the prop and went into orbit and one hit the leading edge of a wing out near the end and put a dent in it the size of a football. Speed was 70 kts, so that gives you an idea of a low velocity strike. BUN operated around Albury with a patch on the wing for years.

 

I also had a near miss with a Skua at Tooradin in a Jab on climb out. Saw him and changed direction, but he dropped a wing and came with me. Rolled in the opposite direction but he was right there. Probably saved him hitting the screen but he went through between the fuse and the wing stay. Lost interest in circuits for that day.

Just another 'tin can' but with a respectable history and a pretty good pedigree. Under the cowl is pretty much the same. Not much use pumping out 6000 plus engines if everyone is bitching about them.

So some have faith in the product.

Obviously cessna are doing thier best to get a slice of our fast growing rec market and one would expect that they would be good at writing POH's after all they've been doing it for 100 years, but they are new to rec aircraft and I wonder if they are in tune to the membership or just making a stripped down aircraft for a low (for them) price.Jabs are Australian, were born in the ultralight market and are well represented all over the country,

When compared to some of the great stuff now available on the market - they are just another tin can.

Jabiru in this market is one of the Worlds biggest makers and has sales and history of use beyond any other maker in its class.

Over 1800 aircraft sold, over 6000 engines.

At this stage of the game Jabiru has runs on the board.

Phil

IQ is the name of the restructure and reinvention of Qantas.

IQ is the process of change to a Qantas where everyone aims at one thing- been the best Airline in the World and still make money.

Internal Qantas, Intelligent Qantas.........

Bloody fun job this CEO lark.

Hmm... Arent most 777's over $200 mil, and airbus's above $50 mil when purchased new..... $160 mil + $200 mil = $360 mil.... = not enough for 2 new 777's, but probably one 777, and 2 airbus aircraft... (only 60% of the 5 aircraft you bought with long term savings?) or am I missing something....

Also I got a substantial deal from Boeing as they owe big time on the 787 contracts. Amazing what you can do with contracts and a smile.

Go to go have a airline to fly

Meetings with pilots and engineers have been very sucessful and plans for Qantas IQ are moving forward.

After speaking with the Byrd family we have finalised a name.

The Qantas Byrd Institute has been created and has seed funding of $30 million plus the $18million from efficiency dividends.

Final plans are been made and the mission statement and scope is soon to be announced.

So what is Qantas Byrd?

Thats where all elemental training takes place. Qantas will no longer outsource any pilot training.

Qantas Byrd will provide all training from Ab initio up. All pilots will be expected to have considerable time in single and twin engine fixed wing and must stay current.

Qantas Cadets are paid to train and only the best are accepted, All training will be to a standard and not a price point and befitting the best Pilots in the world.

All staff of Qantas will be able to use the Qantas Bryd eagle program at minimal cost. This means any staff can get a RAA or pilots licence and be trained and use the fleet Byrd's this is part of the incentive program for staff. Staff will be eligible for eagle rewards to provide free training or use.

Eagle Rewards are transferable to nominated family- so your son or daughter could be involved.

By reinstating the spirit of flying and a real opportunity to be a pilot and understand flight, big cultural change can happen. Qantas is the Flying Kangaroo- the Spirit of Australia.

We must have a workforce that loves aviation and been the best at it. As a company Qantas needs to be all about Aviation and excellence.

Qantas Byrd will also be a training organisation for advanced training of foreign pilots to Qantas standards.

Qantas Byrd will also have a charitable role and provide scholarships to Australian and some international aspiring pilots.

Qantas Bryd will also have a role in training and aviation studies in secondary and tertiary education.

Further plans for Qantas Byrd will be announced following discussions with Government and our Alliance partners.

My fellow workers are planning the Byrd nest sites now.

Your fellow worker

Litespeed.

Following meetings with staff and approval by staff vote and board...............

I have rationalised the legal and HR departments.

All legal and HR staff who were working on screwing employees have been sacked or relocated.

All staff dedicated to screwing contractors have also been removed.

All relocated staff have now joined the cleaning crews.

All external consultants and lawyers have been let go.

I have been able to save approx $200 million over two years and more when the new cleaners voluntarily leave.

As such we have purchased 3 new long haul airbus aircraft and staff have voted on

Legal Eagle

HR puffinstuff

Clean as you go.

I have also rearranged the advertising department and sacked the choir.

90 % of staff felt PR had been a waste of space and money.

As such 90% reductions of PR and advertising have been made.

As needed staff in PR have also been allocated to cleaning crews.

Savings of $160 million have been made per year and will be reinvested in two new 777

As befitting their funding they will be called

Spinmaster

Bulls roar

Will be speaking with staff about accounting soon.

Well I will be buggered

Saved a heap of money, made the staff happy and bought 5 new planes with the long term savings.

Been a good day

A fund of 5% of all savings has been allocated to shares for employees- so $18million as a efficiency dividend.

A further 5% of savings have been allocated to Qantas IQ

Your fellow employee owner

Litespeed

Policy of Litespeed, new CEO of Qantas - see post 90Point 7

 

Qantas has several business units.

 

You are entitled to offset and subsidize costs between these entities to maximise your group market.

 

Every big company does this, and is most cases this is what gives them the critical mass of income to cover shortfalls in seasonal markets, geographical markets, business downturns etc.

 

Yes,

 

they are a group and offsetting/subsidising are legal as long as the accounts are a true reflection of that. Hiding costs in a different group such as Jetstar getting freebies and Qantas paying for it- is not legal. The use of such methods with O/S flights also breaks the laws of the country the transaction took place. That is fraudulent accounting practices and contravenes not just international and Australian accounting standards. To feather a balance sheet and not disclose where and how the feathers got there is fraud. To make false statements and sign off accounts that are manifestly untrue is a criminal act. To make untrue statements to the stock exchange, the market and government inquiries, FWA and other courts is also a criminal act. To make statements to CASA about safe operations or a reason for grounding a fleet that are untrue or misleading is also a criminal offence and actually is a personal legal liability on the chief safety head. Even to publicly make statements about profits or losses at QI when the truth is otherwise is illegal under corporations law.

 

The mind boggles in how close attention would yeild big issues at Qantas. Remember these are the guys that entered illegal cartels to inflate freight costs.

 

The only thing that stopped jail was mega dollar lawyers and the company hiding all evidence. If the company provided all it had and treated any employee suspected of criminal activity the way they should, the result would be far different.

 

Under a new broom directors, execs and other staff would be stood down on pay and investigated. No liability or indemnity would be provided for illegal activity. Qantas should not be paying the legal bills to protect a rogue, nor should it protect them.

 

At one stage I was involved in international marketing with the Japanese and had always wondered how they could sell new trucks in Papua New Guinea - easy, they were slugging the rich countries to subsidise the poor. Where in Australia we were paying $35,000.00 the same truck, with less trim etc was $17,000.00. Australians weren't losing though, this policy sold huge numbers which produced volume savinga allowing the Japanes to undercut the previous British and Amercan companies who weren't so smart, by about $10,000.00.

 

 

Or will you thank the media for their thoughts and get on with it, given that you have a huge advantage over most other airlines in offering cheaper fares and still getting income through the subsidiaries?

 

Qantas needs to have a international arm and local arm, we expect it and the sale act demands it.

 

Any effort to circumvent the model of Qantas is a head banging exercise that sucks talent, effort, money and good will from the brand.

 

Qantas has significant natural advantages that no other airline in the world can match, but instead of using these gifts it abuses them and turns them to deficits.

 

Qantas is and always will be a premium airline, to try to be anything else is suicide. This does not mean cost does not matter but people pay a premium happily if it meets expectations.

 

All the things that are held as disadvantages for qantas are actually its best assets.

 

The most expensive maintenance.........think worlds best safety, best trained engineers all done for the Best in reliable and safe operations.

 

More engineers to inspect your aircraft and paid to be the best..........should be part of the ad campaign, not the whine campaign.

 

As far as cost ratios for staff compared to other airlines- good. You get what you pay for, I want the best staff and pay em for been the best.

 

If you fly Qantas you pay a premium so should get premium staff, premium safety, premium planes and the best service.

 

Give that to customers and they happily pay.

 

Qantas is Not a flying bus service especially for International. It is a chauffeur driven thoroughbred with wings.

 

You want a bus get a Jetstar.

 

Your right I had not yet mentioned flight crew.

 

I had not replaced them with monkeys or 5 year olds.

 

They were busy doing training with 15 year old kids in single engine planes. All part of the Qantas IQ, will detail this latter.

 

An interesting omission from your very good proposal was the flight crew - the Facthunters.

 

Do you want to pay Facthunters or as he says button pushers.?

 

What are the consequences?

 

What really is the impact of the two pay scales in terms of seat price? Is it significant, or is it foolish pennypinching with huge potential market penalties.

 

Consider the A 380 engine failure and the amazingly complex saving of hundreds of lives by Richard DeCrespigny. Is he worth his money? That engine loss would have led to a crash is just an average button pusher had been in charge, and the report would have said there was virtually nothing the crew could have done.

 

But what impact would that crash have had on your market?

 

We used to be able to say that Australia had the best pilot standards in the world, and the best maintenance standards in the world. How much does that cost in terms of a typical fare.

 

All flight crews will be expected to be the best possible and paid accordingly. No pilots no planes. Simple.

 

I would have the best paid pilots in the world, people expect that with Qantas and pay extra for it.

 

Unfortunately Richard DeCrespigny turned down my offer to be cloned and Gold Plated, but negotiations continue.

 

Button pushers will now work in call centres only- safer that way.

 

Another omission was the reality check on what is causing us to have this discussion.

 

This morning I checked the cost of a return flight from Melbourne to Brisbane leaving on December 16 and returning December 20

 

Qantas: $610.00

 

Jetstar: $248.00

 

Given that Jetstar are flying with full cabins, how are you going to address this disparity in price?

 

(I know, instruct Jetstar to lift their their price, but just assume this is a typical compatitor price.)

 

Good effort just the same, what's happened to you other experts?

 

Point 6.

Not anywhere as big a problem as people claim, yes prices could be lower and would be. But Qantas is and should be more, as that is what the customer gets with a premium airline. It is the expensive seats that makes the big bucks, be it punters, bussiness or government they pay a lot more.

As long as they get value and service levels they expect, they will go Qantas. By trying to race to the bottom, people want a rock bottom price.

Given what we know about dodgy accounts those above fares are distorted, so not relevant under the new CEO.

A new pay structure has been developed.

No one can earn more than 20 times a toilet cleaner

No management can earn more than twice a captains pay.

Everyone gets shares in pay structure

No management can get a bonus, you are paid to excel. IF not your sacked.

Well bugger me, The wages costs just nosedived and the staff are happy.

Welcome To Qantas- we actually give a damn

Your fellow employee

CEO

Litespeed

Policy of Litespeed, new CEO of Qantas - see post 90Point 1

 

You're in charge of Qantas, you'd be calling for an outside investigation into your own Company - bold move and immediate message that you will not tolerate corruption.

 

But where's solid proof of corruption and law breaking?

 

On the down side and outside investigation could get out of control - not all the people you mention have a very good record in fast results or understand the necessity for the Company to keep operating while this is going on. You yourself will have to fly to various parts of the world to attend hearings, you will have to make major decisions, you will have to come up with replacement company rules, you will have to fire people, you will have to carefully select new people, you will have to deal with phone calls from 40 year pilots.

 

Much of the first year will not be available for you to do what you are setting out to do, and the company could swing into a new crisis where you need that time.

 

What about appointing a small group headed by a retired judge to investigate, handle any misdemeanors, and refer any corrupt dealings or criminal activities to authorities?

 

That's right, no corruption, no featherbedding, no financial tricks and open management and processes. It is not really bold or brave- just the right thing to do. It would also be golden positive PR and make the workers feel you are one of them- which you are.,

 

Yes, a retired judge would be best with a forensic team, the calling in of the authority heads is to ensure it is a top priority for all concerned and to ensure the process is managed to stop disruption. No stop to operations would be required at all.

 

Is there solid proof- almost 100%, the laws and regulations are there and as with anything in the law game it only depends on will to interpret the facts and law as intended by its drafters- not by the law teams who look after their mates.

 

Changes in rules, selected sackings and a new management team are the bread and butter of real management. They would require no greater effort than the head banging version that is currently going on.

 

Point 2

 

Critical for an understanding of the airline industry, but you're not in the airline industry, you're in the financial industry.

 

What about some people with a proven track record of successfully running large companies with small turnovers on sales?

 

Totally disagree- the reason they are so much in trouble is they treat it like a financial kingdom and with serfs for employees- all of which just happen to fly planes. YES it must be well run and have sound finances- but not financial engineers running the show.

 

First and foremost Qantas is a Airline with many related entities that all revolve around travel on aircraft, even the frequent flyer program. To not have that as principle number 1 is fatal to its success.

 

Is the current management bad? Or are the current problems because the hard decisions to cope with the Open Skies haven't been addressed by previous CEO's?

 

It is both, they are very bad management that has willingly harmed the airline by horrific strategies with staff, customers and Australian public. Decisions have been poor for many years including the previous board and execs, many of which are still around.

 

The adversarial management style is the greatest problem they have, this has been created over more than a decade.

 

Point 3

 

looks a good idea, but what if these two start enjoying life at the top? Do you want puppets at this level, or people with vast management experience, exceptional research capability, a contact network to die for, and a proven ability to make the correct business decision again and again?

 

The same can be said of any board member or exec. The staff directors would be drawn from the workforce and be rotated yearly?. They would be paid and rewarded exactly the same as any other director- to do otherwise in unethical.

 

The research, management and contacts are not the needs of a director at all- most of that comes from those below. You have incredible resources at your disposal in staff. Directors are there to provide vision, develop strategies and bring the staff with them through change by leadership.

 

The proven ability on business decisions is laughable from almost all boards- how many have seen share value and maketshare drop, profits tank and still get a bonus. Almost every board in the country.

 

What about the alternative of involving staff in tough decisions?

 

That will really get decisions based on ground floor issues and efficiencies, with expert knowledge on what is happening in cockpits, ground support and maintenance and logistics, and for that matter marketing (for those who remember Sir Peter Abeles instruction to paint all the Ansett aircraft white for no other reason than that's the way his trucks came out of the factory and it saved money on trucks.)

 

The staff in a properly collaborative workplace are the greatest asset, with guidance and proper process in place- decisions are almost always better and the staff have some ownership in the whole deal.

 

Point 4

 

Great idea. I've seen workers make tough decisions to minimise long term job losses. Needs qualification though, remeber Fletcher Jones and Staff - they all backed the wrong direction and went under.

 

Well managed staff, with the right info,will make the right decisions and make the enterprise great. As workers who actually have a part of the shares and actively involved in running the show would make a huge difference.

 

Point 5.

 

As the new arrival, here is your first big brick wall.

 

New fuel efficient aircraft have already been ordered but are late and have cost you $24 million in lost fuel savings so far ? What are you going to do?

 

35 new Boening 787 Dreamliners yhave been ordered and are coming on line mid 2014.

 

Aircraft are a depreciating asset like car and truck fleets and it's financially prohibitive to change over the entire fleet in one hit, so you have to amortise the old ones first.

 

Something for you, the CEO to do some lateral thinking on.

 

Do you allocate the new aircraft to the longer runs, saving fuel but alienating customers who have to ride on the older aircraft.

 

How will you manage the fleet you have been dealt?

 

For example will you open up new markets with short legs where fuel is not so crucial, and use that market to pay for new long distance fuel efficient jets?

 

I would do what they should have and even lease where needed the right plane for correct longer routes.

 

I would get some of the new craft from Jetstar and run the older shit in the Jetstar cattle class runs, they pay a lot less and expect less.

 

The management of the 787 purchase has been a bungle from the start. Over 3 years late and no proper plans to deal with delays that blind freddy new were going to happen.

 

Yes a complete new fleet could not be done at once but large changes are possible given the fleet, many of which have been amortised long ago.

 

Point 6

 

If you reverse the off-shoring of maintenance, you'll be restoring part of what has been the biggest selling factor for Qantas, the perception of safety.

 

So this is a plus which will bring in extra customers.

 

But what is the cost factor? Is it significant to drive those customers, and more, away, and sink the airline?

 

The current safety disasters are numerous and have a far greater cost to the airline than even paying Gold plated maintenance. It is a slow poisoning of the Red Roo and a big factor in sales loss. If fact the reason I no longer fly Qantas combined with terrible service from personal experience. Every even minor incident makes world wide news- why? Cause safety is Qantas.

 

 

People have always paid a premium for Qantas Safety and been happy to. It is a fundamental part of the brand and a major asset not just a cost centre, but a significant generator of income. Just ask 'Rain Man'.

 

Point 7

 

will make another post

 

Qantas has several business units.

 

You are entitled to offset and subsidize costs between these entities to maximise your group market.

 

Every big company does this, and is most cases this is what gives them the critical mass of income to cover shortfalls in seasonal markets, geographical markets, business downturns etc.

 

At one stage I was involved in international marketing with the Japanese and had always wondered how they could sell new trucks in Papua New Guinea - easy, they were slugging the rich countries to subsidise the poor. Where in Australia we were paying $35,000.00 the same truck, with less trim etc was $17,000.00. Australians weren't losing though, this policy sold huge numbers which produced volume savinga allowing the Japanes to undercut the previous British and Amercan companies who weren't so smart, by about $10,000.00.

 

If doing what you want to do will sacrifice Qantas and leave you with the cheaper Jetstar division, is that what you really want to do?

 

Or will you thank the media for their thoughts and get on with it, given that you have a huge advantage over most other airlines in offering cheaper fares and still getting income through the subsidiaries?

 

An interesting omission from your very good proposal was the flight crew - the Facthunters.

 

Do you want to pay Facthunters or as he says button pushers.?

 

What are the consequences?

 

What really is the impact of the two pay scales in terms of seat price? Is it significant, or is it foolish pennypinching with huge potential market penalties.

 

Consider the A 380 engine failure and the amazingly complex saving of hundreds of lives by Richard DeCrespigny. Is he worth his money? That engine loss would have led to a crash is just an average button pusher had been in charge, and the report would have said there was virtually nothing the crew could have done.

 

But what impact would that crash have had on your market?

 

We used to be able to say that Australia had the best pilot standards in the world, and the best maintenance standards in the world. How much does that cost in terms of a typical fare.

 

Another omission was the reality check on what is causing us to have this discussion.

 

This morning I checked the cost of a return flight from Melbourne to Brisbane leaving on December 16 and returning December 20

 

Qantas: $610.00

 

Jetstar: $248.00

 

Given that Jetstar are flying with full cabins, how are you going to address this disparity in price?

 

(I know, instruct Jetstar to lift their their price, but just assume this is a typical compatitor price.)

 

Good effort just the same, what's happened to you other experts?

 

Point 6.

Will consider and get back to you.

Off for beer.

Now here's an interesting comparison to think about. Would it be fair to say that your average high wing has a more 'upright' windscreen than a bubble canopy low wing? Question is, would the additional slope on the bubble tend to deflect the bird rather than stop it dead (so to speak), and thus lessen the breaking force?

The greater the angle, the shallower the angle of incidence, the lower the forces to absorb.

So it is possible to provide greater protection for a given weight of lexan through design.

As far as helmets and cockpits- if it goes fast enough for a small bird direct hit to be FUBAR, then a helmet is absolutely warranted. My idea of fast is more than many might want.

You are braver than me.

Good on Ya

Here is from Crikey.

AIPA President Captain Barry Jackson said Mr Joyce’s repeated claim that he made the decision to ground the entire Qantas fleet in a snap decision on Saturday was suspect in the extreme and a full judicial inquiry should be held into the circumstances.

“Mr Joyce’s claim, that he made this disgraceful and reckless decision on Saturday, is very tough to believe,” Captain Jackson said.

“We understand hotel rooms were booked all over the globe on Thursday. The couriers who delivered lock-out notices to pilots yesterday were booked last week. Qantas management representatives at Fair Work Australia even admitted on Saturday that preparations for a possible grounding had been underway for ten days.

“Mr Joyce needs to be provide all the facts about how long he has planned to abandon unsuspecting Qantas passengers.“If it is true that Mr Joyce planned this action in advance then he needs to explain to Qantas passengers why he continued to sell them tickets.”

“Here we have a CEO who pocketed a two million dollar pay rise on Friday, stranded 68,000 passengers around the globe on Saturday, tried to pin the blame on the government on Sunday and then thinks he can claim victory and walk away scot-free on Monday.

Love the last sentence.

Standard and Poors have downgraded Qantas from stable to negative. They cite the stunt on the weekend as causing significant reputation damage to the brand.

Joyce has Gambled way to much and soon the markets will speak.

This debacle was actually the biggest topic on twitter worldwide over the weekend. That is similar levels to Gadaffi been killed, but Qantas will keep generating news and tweets, blogs etc for a long time to come.

The sheer size of the media attention overseas has propelled Qantas to every ones attention in the worst possible light.

The value of the brand Qantas International is diving by the hour.

We all live in interesting times.