There is no argument that some protests against Qantas were not distruptive to the passengers (who, along with the freight, pay the wages). But if I may quote a sentence from the closing of the Contrails article at the back of the September 2012 issue of Australian Aviation: "One thing is certain: if there is a repeat of the 12-month industrial chaos that Qantas passengers suffered through 2011, they will not be Qantas passengers any more."

 

I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree. If the unions and the airline can't reach an agreement, we don't stand a chance. At least we managed to stay on topic. ^_^

A CEO with his heart set on ruining an a Australian icon in favour of profit margins..

Don't you realise what you've just said, that's exactly what a CEO is supposed to do in a private company, strive to get greater profit margins. If you want the company run as an Australian icon, then the government should not have sold it off to shareholders. It's sole purpose is to generate profit, not transport passengers, not to be an icon abroad, not to provide a great, safe service, but to generate a profit, because that is what the share holders want. Now, you could say, that good safety, service and being an icon help in the generation of that profit, but it's the end result that counts...

 

Regards,

Ró.

And @ fencer if your trolling for arguments and reactions please do so in your own thread or pm me,

 

PM you? Good Lord ! No thanks. I have had enough unwanted mail these last days !

 

Its become quite clear you have no actual input into this debate..

 

In a way you are right, since my first input was in reaction to some comment of yours that I found outrageous, and for which you were officially warned, by the way.

 

But I am really interested in this thread since it addresses a general problem that most (all?) legacy carriers face or have had to face, whether it is in Australia, the US or Europe.

 

So I intend, with - or even without - you kind permission, to continue following it. :smile:

 

Bruno

 

PS (edit) : I just read Rónán's reply and this is funny because I had a paragraph on this sentence of yours that I had removed before posting. But I couldn't agree more with him.

QF has a long union legacy.you have the pilots' union, the LAMEs , and of course the Transport Workers Union, which caters for truck drivers, catering personnel, baggage handlers, etc. And literally is the most militant. I have lots of experience with (or is it against?:-) ) them and they are extremely difficult to negotiate with as they operate by the power of the numbers.

 

Give you an example, the late Ansett Airlines had a union agreement that they would eemploy 12 baggage handlers per B727 turn around....ludicrous...those guys used to take turns sleeping in the baggage hold while the rest took their turn working, and a 727 turn around was 50 minutes minimum! Now i have a lot of respect for the far more mature approach taken by pilots and lames in the industrial dispute, rather than the primitive "employ all our members even if you cant afford them or we will cripple your business". But still, the bottom line is, they are all going for more pay, more benefits, guaranteed jobs, etc from an airline that simply cannot afford it.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-P5100 using Tapatalk 2

Don't you realise what you've just said, that's exactly what a CEO is supposed to do in a private company, strive to get greater profit margins. If you want the company run as an Australian icon, then the government should not have sold it off to shareholders. It's sole purpose is to generate profit, not transport passengers, not to be an icon abroad, not to provide a great, safe service, but to generate a profit, because that is what the share holders want. Now, you could say, that good safety, service and being an icon help in the generation of that profit, but it's the end result that counts...

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

And therein lies the problem with airlines. Are they a private or public good? If they are a private good, then why is government so heavily involved in its affairs? And if it is a public good, then why is there supposed to be competition and profits? Airlines today are either in, have been in, or are about to be in, financial trouble because they have to be both.

I remember the "good old days" when BEA (now BA) and Air france were state-owned and had a monopoly on the London-Paris route.

 

They charged exactly the same fares and IATA rules meant they didn't compete on service - IATA even had specifications for the quality of sandwiches! To add insult to injury, they had a revenue sharing agreement as well. If you bought a BEA ticket part of the fare went to Air France.That was a nice arrangement for the airline and its staff, but not for the passengers

 

Incidentally,in those dasy too captains refused to travel to the aircraft in the same vehicle as their crew. They demanded,and got, their own car and driver.

I remember the "good old days" when BEA (now BA) and Air france were state-owned and had a monopoly on the London-Paris route.

 

Yes, and obtaining landing slots, even after the deregulation, has always been especially difficult at some airports (London was - and still is - a good example, among others).

 

The main problem is that, even if management if often to be blamed, part of the personnel and unions at the legacy airlines (not necessarily only the two you mention) have not realized that the times have changed and that low cost airlines and (in some countries) high-speed trains are here to stay. Add to that rising fuel prices and mediocre economic conditions and you can see more trouble in the future.

 

In Europe, Air France management seems to be having some measure of success in convincing the unions, but for IAG, Iberia is really the problem child now. SAS has been unofficially on sale for quite a few months but there are no takers. Alitalia is in a comparable situation with AF-KLM already owning 25% of the company but unwilling to swap equity for more due to their current share value. And Lufthansa commercial crews just decided (yesterday) to go on unlimited strike in the near future.

 

In the US, most large legacy carriers would have disappeared were it not for chapter 11 (but they were never state-owned so the situation is different).

 

In India, Air India pilots just went through a very long strike.

 

So it's no surprise than even Qantas lives troubled times. But for an outsider, the strange fact is that Qantas looses money in international operations while for most European Airlines, long range (ie outside of Europe) is still the most (and often the only) profitable segment.

 

Bruno

Yes, and obtaining landing slots, even after the deregulation, has always been especially difficult at some airports (London was - and still is - a good example, among others).

 

The main problem is that, even if management if often to be blamed, part of the personnel and unions at the legacy airlines (not necessarily only the two you mention) have not realized that the times have changed and that low cost airlines and (in some countries) high-speed trains are here to stay. Add to that rising fuel prices and mediocre economic conditions and you can see more trouble in the future.

 

In Europe, Air France management seems to be having some measure of success in convincing the unions, but for IAG, Iberia is really the problem child now. SAS has been unofficially on sale for quite a few months but there are no takers. Alitalia is in a comparable situation with AF-KLM already owning 25% of the company but unwilling to swap equity for more due to their current share value. And Lufthansa commercial crews just decided (yesterday) to go on unlimited strike in the near future.

 

In the US, most large legacy carriers would have disappeared were it not for chapter 11 (but they were never state-owned so the situation is different).

 

In India, Air India pilots just went through a very long strike.

 

So it's no surprise than even Qantas lives troubled times. But for an outsider, the strange fact is that Qantas looses money in international operations while for most European Airlines, long range (ie outside of Europe) is still the most (and often the only) profitable segment.

 

Bruno

 

Indeed the coming of the LCC has really placed a dint in many Legacy carriers, you either have to adapt and face up to the challenge, or go bust. In the end of the day, if you're not providing what the customer wants, be it a low fare, a high quality service, a reliable and punctual schedule, a clean well maintained aircraft, serve airports the customer wants to go to, then the customer will go elsewhere to a carrier that does provide those services. With so much choice out there on the market now, no carrier can rest on their laurels and say that as people used always fly with them in the past, they'll continue to fly with them in the future, that's not the way competition and business works.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Indeed the coming of the LCC has really placed a dint in many Legacy carriers, you either have to adapt and face up to the challenge, or go bust. In the end of the day, if you're not providing what the customer wants, be it a low fare, a high quality service, a reliable and punctual schedule, a clean well maintained aircraft, serve airports the customer wants to go to, then the customer will go elsewhere to a carrier that does provide those services. With so much choice out there on the market now, no carrier can rest on their laurels and say that as people used always fly with them in the past, they'll continue to fly with them in the future, that's not the way competition and business works.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Quite agree Ronan, even not so big carriers can turn things around.

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/7577528/Air-NZ-profit-beats-expectations

Indeed the coming of the LCC has really placed a dint in many Legacy carriers, you either have to adapt and face up to the challenge, or go bust. In the end of the day, if you're not providing what the customer wants, be it a low fare, a high quality service, a reliable and punctual schedule, a clean well maintained aircraft, serve airports the customer wants to go to, then the customer will go elsewhere to a carrier that does provide those services. With so much choice out there on the market now, no carrier can rest on their laurels and say that as people used always fly with them in the past, they'll continue to fly with them in the future, that's not the way competition and business works.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Yes. In the meantime I have done more reading on the topic. For Qantas, the economic papers say they are especially hurt by the Australian Dollar parity to US Dollar (although it doesn't prevent their domestic operations from making money).

 

And in my list of legacy carriers with problems, I forgot Japan Airlines, which went bankrupt last year and emerged only after drastic reorganization.

 

Bruno

Quite agree Ronan, even not so big carriers can turn things around.

 

http://www.stuff.co....ts-expectations

That's an excellent example of where legacy carriers can face off the competition of LCCs, and make a decent profit at the end of the day. It was just announced a couple weeks back that Aer Lingus is more profitable per passenger flown that Ryanair (that insolent thorn in our sides), showing that with changes in the system, you can come back to the black. It doesn't have to mean pay cuts and that, heck we got pay rises, but it does mean being productive and the example given earlier of having 12 baggage hadlers doing a turn around just isn't on. You can do this by having the right cost base, and then offering the customer what they want. Air NZ being a perfect example.

 

I suppose what I'm saying is that LCC isn't the only viable business model out there, but if you want to offer a legacy product, that doesn't mean you can charge what you want and pay what you like to employees and employ as many as would make the job too easy, you have to remain competitive but it certainly can work. There's no reason Qantas can't get it's cost base under control and start bringing back in the money and becoming something that people are once again proud to call Australian.

 

Regards,

Ró.

In the meantime I have done more reading on the topic.

 

See this just-released Aviation Week article on the topic of so-called "Kangaroo routes". It explains very clearly the problem for carriers at both ends of the route (ie mainly BA and Qantas) when faced with competition based in the Gulf, Singapore or China. It's 4 pages long but I found it a great read.

 

http://www.aviationw...e2a0bc6c497dffc

 

Bruno

 

PS : Apparently, Australian A380 fans and spotters won't be disappointed in the coming years !

http://www.airlinehubbuzz.com/qantasemirates-alliance-set-announced/

Well, there we go.

http://www.airlinehu...-set-announced/

Well, there we go.

 

Confirmed today (as expected)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19498374

 

Bruno

Should have taken the Canadian stance instead as a deal with Emirates is a deal with the devil:

 

http://en.wikipedia....viation_dispute

 

Reality is this is two oil producing nations in a competitive squabble. Canada has more oil then any Middle Eastern Nation so this is competition between nations.

 

I don't know what Aussies excuse is....LOL