Qantas AGM webcast

[markis10]

So from here we can deduce that AJ has deliberately chosen a different source (or possibly fabricated a source) to make his point. That implies his character may embody elements of deception, dishonesty or embarrassment. I'd say it takes guts to trust confidence in a such a person, especially when they are being paid a couple of million a year.


Anyway.... this is far from the original argument, which stemmed from Mr Tilburn referring to AJ as a "little man", and how this was quite reprehensible. I suppose being of under average height has little to do with running Qantas (except perhaps deciding seat pitch). Perhaps the remark was not acceptable, but that said it was not the thrust of the statement that was made at that time, so at a critical function where people have the rarest of opportunities to judge the company in a proper manner, I still maintain, 'big deal'. Obviously Mr Tilburn has little respect for AJ (as well as Leigh Clifford).

My point was nothing to do with the argument/discussion you seem to be self centered on, merely addressing meeting content and notes where "facts" are given by management that are not supported by a reference or context.

Management/Board seem to be so self centered in the past with their points and illusion that its starting to look like a party run by politicians rather than a business run by businessmen. At no point did the meeting cover the cost of the failures from the last year in terms of the failed pursuit of Red Q, the strengthening of the JSA now being dismantled or mention that the industrial action has gone away (which would have been hard given the ruckus out the front with the TWU and a fake AJ).

A year down the track consumer confidence in Qantas be it domestic, international or whatever is still down, probably because the problems have not gone away, the goal posts have just been moved (and a few own goals scored) along with a few fires lit as a distraction. Keep looking in the past folks, because unless there is big change, that will be as good as its going to get.

 

[medhead]

Perhaps I don't, but it seems to render the entire corporate face as being devoid of humanity.

It also seems to suggest that whilst you don't support the decisions made, it is relatively independent of who is the CEO. For example, hypothetically, if John Borghetti was the current CEO of Qantas and he had made those kinds of decisions, so you would not like those decisions all the same.

But we all know (with some confidence, not certain but confident) that if JB was in AJ's exact position, a number of those decisions would not have been made (if any), and several here would argue that the decisions made would be much more acceptable. So decoupling a decision from the person who made them is near impossible, because the genesis of the decision was a person in the first place.

I'd also argue that it is difficult to conceive a decision which didn't have someone's ethics, morals, thoughts, foresight etc. invested in it. So again, how can you decouple a decision from the person? Something in AJ's mind said to him that, as a function of his rationality, character and upbringing, the decisions he has made were the right thing......

It's a fair point/s you've made. But remember most good managers will make decisions for the good of the business, based on the facts at the time, those decisions may very well be made without reference to their feelings as humans, their humanity. Not what do I think is right, but what do I think is right for the business. Yes this will be guided by them as people, but they are paid to make the tough decisions.

I also can't (or won't) speculate on what would have happened if someone else was in that job. It's an interesting thought puzzle but ultimately pointless.

 

[oz_mark]

So from here we can deduce that AJ has deliberately chosen a different source (or possibly fabricated a source) to make his point. That implies his character may embody elements of deception, dishonesty or embarrassment. I'd say it takes guts to trust confidence in a such a person, especially when they are being paid a couple of million a year.

I don't think you can deduce any such thing. We don't know what source was used, and it is quite possible it was a Qantas internally run satisfaction survey. Roy Morgon is hardly the only source (Choice have a semi-annual airline satisfaction survey as well). I think it is a bit rich to say he deliberately chose a different one, more that Markis10 (being restricted to publically available ones) may not have chosen the same source as Qantas used. Also, the timeframe mentioned was from 2007, and you would need to get the data going back to 2007 rather than a single year, in order to verify the veracity of his statement.

 

[serfty]

... Other actions that have been heralded as exemplifying Joyce's incompetence include the following quoted:

• Ignoring 777s
• Mismanagement of fleet and fleet age
• Creation and development of Jetstar - this one is an AFF classic, with a decent chunk of people here committed to never flying the "Orange Cancer"; in particular, many times argued as being developed at the expense of Qantas proper
• Failure to pay dividends
• Share price plunging
• Complacency of market position at hands of agile competitors, both in domestic and international (but especially latter)
• Reduction of workforce
• Withdrawal of services (e.g. QFi) or lack of decent services (or operated by JQ rather than QF), especially international (esp. PER, ADL, CNS, OOL)
• General apathy of service standard or deployment: seat selection, operational upgrades, priority boarding...

...

???

How much of any decision making in relation those points is/was/could-be directly attributable to AJ?

I see only the one that may be (withdrawal of services which appears to have had the desired affect for the company) - the others basically happened or were well on the way before AJ took the help.

Apathy of service standard - that been endemic with QF for as long as I have been a QFF member (1994).

For goodness sakes, he was appointed to create Jetstar - it was hardly his decision.

In fact JB may have been more responsible at at least had significant input in most of those points.

FWIW, I do not hold AJ in contempt - I may not agree with some things, but he does appear to have the shareholders best interests in mind.

 

[cambriamarsh]

Interesting comments. We must remember Qantas is a business first and an icon second. The unions were trying to tell it what to do for reasons best known to themselves but didn't try the same things at Virgin. Maybe they should realise it is a competitive world and Qantas management are doing what they think they need to do the preserve and grow the business, its not a government owned business any more.

Since the grounding I've noticed an improvement in service, quality and engagement. The slow bake wasn't an option, it would have killed the business and given Virgin a clear run because customers would have deserted.

Let's keep their feet to the fire to improve what we. As customers want, but acknowledge good things when they happen. We all benefit from 2 strong carriers. Be thankful you're not in NZ. Off the main trunk Air NZ are creaming it.

 

[mannej]

???

How much of any decision making in relation those points is/was/could-be directly attributable to AJ?

I see only the one that may be (withdrawal of services which appears to have had the desired affect for the company) - the others basically happened or were well on the way before AJ took the help.

Apathy of service standard - that been endemic with QF for as long as I have been a QFF member (1994).

For goodness sakes, he was appointed to create Jetstar - it was hardly his decision.

In fact JB may have been more responsible at at least had significant input in most of those points.

FWIW, I do not hold AJ in contempt - I may not agree with some things, but he does appear to have the shareholders best interests in mind.

I agree. Is there any evidence to suggest that JB would act any different to AJ if he was in charge?

There are things that are mentioned which I find interesting (I.e seat selection for one) where QF are ahead of DJ.

Interesting times...

 

[JohnPhelan]

It also seems to suggest that whilst you don't support the decisions made, it is relatively independent of who is the CEO. For example, hypothetically, if John Borghetti was the current CEO of Qantas and he had made those kinds of decisions, so you would not like those decisions all the same.

But we all know (with some confidence, not certain but confident) that if JB was in AJ's exact position, a number of those decisions would not have been made (if any), and several here would argue that the decisions made would be much more acceptable. So decoupling a decision from the person who made them is near impossible, because the genesis of the decision was a person in the first place.




Are you suggesting that, if JB made the same decisions, then those decisions would be considered OK, while when AJ makes them, people say they are wrong? Is that your view? If so, you are showing very clearly that your dislike for AJ is personal, and nothing to do with any decisions he has made. (And indeed, as Serfty has noted, many of the decisions that you attribute to AJ were in fact made by others, including Geoff Dixon and probably JB himself!)

You're entitled to dislike anyone you want, for whatever reasons you want, but don't try to disguise personal enmity by claiming it's based on the business decisions someone has made.

You clearly think AJ is unethical. And you think superannuation funds are unethical. And "big business" generally is unethical. Yet you make sweeping statements like most AFFers hold AJ "in contempt". Do you consider it unethical and dishonest to portray unsubstantiated, defamatory and biased allegations as fact?