Well Done Alan Joyce - BALLSY!

[vnkid]

Why is it only QANTAS and The Union getting the brunt of the arguement?
Why isn't someone blaming the Government?
Without the Government's interferance, Inflation wouldn't be running so high (alot higher than the reported 3%), promting the Unions to ask for a 5% per year pay rise for 3 years.
The reason for the need for such a high pay rise, is because EVERYTHING is so bloody expensive. Housing, Utilities, Food to name a few.
The other thing is, with everything being so expensive, not many people can afford to fly as much any more, nor do they wish to do so in style (why discount airlines became popular).
So not only is QANTAS competing with low cost airlines, noone can afford the premium. The only option being to cut costs, or allow the company to fail.
How do they cut costs? Ship maintenance off-shore. It's not QANTAS' fault wages in Australia are rediculous. It's the GOVERNMENTS fault for letting it get out of hand. I'm not even going to say which GOVERNMENT started it, but neither has done anything about it.
NOTHING is sustainable in Australia and it's not QANTAS's fault or the Unions.

 

[franck]

well your asking the wrong bloke as i said i work for the company and with that i have a soft spot for the kangaroo but never the less i would still be prepared to pay a little extra, there are a number of reasons for this but i again cannot comment too much but when you have been in the cockpit of a 747400 and witnessed the outstanding pilot emergency proceedures in action, the constant simulator training and difficulties then i assure you these are the things you pay a little extra for. you will say other airlines do the same....yes but look at the records......if that doesnt give you goose bumps and entice you to spend extra i dont know what will

How much extra are you prepared to pay by means of taxes and/or air fares to let this happen?

Reaper

 

[gopher]

wasn't alan joyce involved in the ansett failure?

 

[Reaper]

well your asking the wrong bloke as i said i work for the company and with that i have a soft spot for the kangaroo but never the less i would still be prepared to pay a little extra, there are a number of reasons for this but i again cannot comment too much but when you have been in the cockpit of a 747400 and witnessed the outstanding pilot emergency proceedures in action, the constant simulator training and difficulties then i assure you these are the things you pay a little extra for. you will say other airlines do the same....yes but look at the records......if that doesnt give you goose bumps and entice you to spend extra i dont know what will

No doubt about it. There are a few airlines that I would flat out refuse to fly nomatter how cheap they might be for exactly the reasons you speak of. To think that the skills required to maintain and safely fly aircraft is unique to Australia is wrong though. For Qantas to survive I can only see 2 ways.

1. Govco subsidise the "Australian" jobs bridging the difference between Aus wages and that overseas. But then why don't they do that in any number of other industries either? I can't see any Australian government doing this of any flavour.
2. Lower it's costs to bring it on par with it's competitors (even though some are subsidised by their own government).

If anybody has any other alternatives I'd be keen to hear them. Denial or bleating about the company should just pay the money won't cut it here - eventually it will go broke with such a policy.

wasn't alan joyce involved in the ansett failure?

He was employed at Ansett but left before the collapse and joined Qantas AFAIK. Not sure about his role(s) at Ansett but just because he was employed there, it does not mean he caused the airline to fail. You might even view it as a strength as he has seen the internal workings of a airline shortly before collapse.

Reaper.

 

[Crisis63]

For Qantas to survive I can only see 2 ways.

1. Govco subsidise the "Australian" jobs bridging the difference between Aus wages and that overseas. But then why don't they do that in any number of other industries either? I can't see any Australian government doing this of any flavour.
2. Lower it's costs to bring it on par with it's competitors (even though some are subsidised by their own government).

If anybody has any other alternatives I'd be keen to hear them. Denial or bleating about the company should just pay the money won't cut it here - eventually it will go broke with such a policy.




Reaper.

As I said Mercedes and BMW have survived and done it by creating a demand or finding the right market for what they sell.

According to an associate professor in strategy and international business at Melbourne University, Douglas Dow, the airline has a viable airline revenue model that focuses on premium travel.
''There's no need to change it,'' he said. ''There is a segment of the market that demands low-cost fares and that's why Qantas set up Jetstar to compete in that area.''
He said Qantas's premium and business passengers were not concerned about cost. ''They just want to know they have a reliable service that will get them to their destination or meeting on time.''

Flight Centre spokesman Haydn Long said air travellers were interested in price but it was not always the deciding factor when they bought a ticket.
''There is a demand for premium services like those offered by Qantas,'' he said. ''Just look at the success of Singapore Airlines, Emirates and Etihad. They are all offering a really good product and people are willing to pay for it.''Travellers not always lured by low-cost carriers


1. Singapore Airlines
Singapore Airlines may be based in a small country, but it covers a lot of international destinations and flies more passengers every year than the entire population of Singapore.
2. Cathay Pacific
Cathay Pacific is also a member of the Oneworld alliance and is the top ranked Asian-based airline by Skytrax.
3. Qantas
Qantas is a member of Oneworld, alongside British Airways, and repeatedly scores well with passengers around the world for its service.

Top 10 Airlines in the World - The World's Top 10 Airlines


Companies who go down the track of following their competitors in price wars are often the ones at risk of going broke.

 

[Rufys]

You just don't get it Crisis. The same level of service can easily be achieved simply by using CHEAPER LABOUR!

Australian labour is more expensive and not as good as cheaper foreign labour. Not as good because they're usually a bunch of whinging slackers!

Flown Thai or Singapore recently? Their service leave BA and QANTAS for dead!

Both those airlines also have much cheaper maintenance labour and it's not compromising the level of service either. QANTAS nearly lost an A380 not all that long ago. Singapore haven't... Go figure!

The argument that Australians are better at something or provide better service than their equivalent Asians is laughable and borderline racism.

Get with the times!

 

[Crisis63]

You just don't get it Crisis. The same level of service can easily be achieved simply by using CHEAPER LABOUR!

Debatable. Cheap labour comes with compromises in other areas also. But the point is that if Qantas claim their reason for looking for cheaper offshore labour is one of ultimate survival it is not true. They do not have to have the cheapest labour available to survive if they are not trying to be the cheapest airlines. The reason they want it is for maximum returns to shareholders. So they should be honest.

Australian labour is more expensive and not as good as cheaper foreign labour. Not as good because they're usually a bunch of whinging slackers!

Not as good. How do you quantify that? The rest is a ridiculous uninformed generalisation.

Flown Thai or Singapore recently? Their service leave BA and QANTAS for dead!

No, how?

Both those airlines also have much cheaper maintenance labour and it's not compromising the level of service either.

facts, figures, comparisons?????

QANTAS nearly lost an A380 not all that long ago. Singapore haven't... Go figure!

Seriously, you wanna go there?!
At least 70 people were killed when a Singapore Airlines Boeing 747-400 jet crashed in typhoon winds and burst into flames on takeoff at Taipei international airport Tuesday night. Wednesday, November 01, 2000

Qantas - 2.76 million flights, 0 fatal events, -85% below average accident rate
Singapore - 1.62 million flights, 2 fatal events, +100% above average accident rate

Airline accident ratings

The argument that Australians are better at something or provide better service than their equivalent Asians is laughable and borderline racism.

Get with the times!

Never said we were. I believe that is a broad generalisation also.

 

[Rufys]

Do I want to go where? I'm talking the modern era. No A380 in the Singapore fleet as nearly crashed. One of QANTAS' have!

And another "Oh my god!!!" moment from a comment of yours... How does crashing in typhoon winds relate to lower standards of maintenance? You still have no idea buddy. Time to block you. Sick of the childish nonsense you sprout. I feel sorry for you and anyone who believes your stupidity.

 

[minux]

Regarding the Singapore Airlines crash, just thought I would post the story via wiki.

Date 31 October 2000
Type Pilot error, Runway confusion, ATC Error, Poor Airport Lighting
Site Chiang Kai-shek International Airport (now Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport)
Passengers 159
Crew 20
Injuries 71
Fatalities 83
Survivors 96
Aircraft type Boeing 747-412
Operator Singapore Airlines
Tail number 9V-SPK
Flight origin Singapore Changi Airport
Last stopover Chiang Kai-shek International Airport
Destination Los Angeles International Airport

At 15:00 UTC, 23:00 Taipei local time on 31 October 2000, 9V-SPK, a Boeing 747-400 delivered on 21 January 1997,[3] left Bay B5 [4] during heavy rain caused by Typhoon Xangsane. At 23:05:57, the CKS Airport cleared the aircraft to taxi to runway 05L via "taxiway Sierra Sierra West Cross" and "November Papa".[4] At 23:15:22, the airport cleared the aircraft to takeoff at 05L.[4] Many carriers in Southeast and East Asia take off during inclement weather.[5] 9V-SPK had its last maintenance check on 16 September 2000, and had no defects.[6]
After a six-second hold, at 23:16:36, the crew attempted takeoff on runway 05R, which had been closed for repairs, instead of the assigned runway 05L (which runs parallel to 05R). The captain, Foong Chee Kong, correctly heard that he needed to take off at 05L, but he turned 215 metres (705 ft) too soon and lined up with 05R.[7] The airport was not equipped with ASDA, a ground radar which allows the airport controllers to monitor aircraft movements on the ground.[8]

Due to poor visibility in the heavy rain, the flight crew did not see that construction equipment, including two excavators, two vibrating rollers, one small bulldozer, and one air compressor,[3] had been parked on runway 05R. In addition, the runway contained concrete jersey barriers and pits.[4] About 41 seconds later,[4] the aircraft collided with the machinery and broke into pieces. The fuselage was torn in two, and the engines and landing gear separated.[4] A crane tore the left wing from the aircraft, forcing the jet back on to the ground.[9] The nose struck a scoop loader.[10] A large fire followed, destroying the forward section of the fuselage and the wings.[4] 79 of 159 passengers and 4 of 20 crew members died in the accident. Many of the dead were seated in the middle section of the aircraft;[3] the fuel stored in the wings exploded and sent balls of flame through that section.[11] At 23:17:36, the emergency bell sounded. 41 fire fighting vehicles, 58 ambulances, 9 lighting units, and 4,336 personnel were dispatched to assist survivors and extinguish the fire. Chemical extinguishing agents rained on the aircraft at about three minutes after the impact.[4] At 23:35, roughly 10 minutes after the impact, the fire was brought under control.[4] At 23:40, non-airport ambulances and emergency vehicles from other agencies congregated at the north gate. At 00:00 Taipei time on 1 November, the fire was mostly extinguished and the front part of the aircraft was destroyed. Authorities established a temporary command centre.[4]

I am not sure pilot error could be blamed on the airline. Although, irrelevant as the original discussion was about losing a plane.

 

[Crisis63]

I am not sure pilot error could be blamed on the airline. Although, irrelevant as the original discussion was about losing a plane.

I saw the reason for the crash. Seriously I don’t know why I bother getting actual facts and links when I could just make stupid broad generalisations and then turn around and abuse whoever disagrees with me for “missing the point” Perhaps if their points made sense or were relevant. I was told Qantas “nearly crashed” an A380 as some kind of support for the unsupported assumption that "Thai or Singapores have much cheaper maintenance labour and it's not compromising the level of service.”
Qantas have a perfect record i.e. no fatal crashes since they have flown jets. “Nearly” crashing one does not count. Airliners nearly crash every day. Qantas’s HAVENT!