Now Qantas 3000 jobs to go

**buggerlugs** · 21-02-2014, 05:55 PM

http://www.news.com.au/finance/busin...-1226833981885

LG17 · 21-02-2014, 05:57 PM

Qantas is always shedding jobs - swings and roundabouts.

**buggerlugs** · 21-02-2014, 06:49 PM

Qantas saying it is only rumours. Unfortunately like Ford, Holden and Toyota , where there is smoke sometimes there is fire........There has been quite a few recent reports on the state of the Australian Aviation industry, and they have not been glowing reports..........

zilo · 21-02-2014, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

http://www.news.com.au/finance/busin...-1226833981885

News limited is a joke mate....wouldn't **** on them if they were on fire

**ebxr8240** · 22-02-2014, 01:39 AM

Employ Asian workers?? May as well fly Asian...
The worker can penny pinch too !!

mik · 24-02-2014, 12:34 AM

There was a current affair program 2 or three weeks ago about the Qantas woes, it looked very much (the high ups)they made very poor business decisions buying a shed load of planes they didn't need trying to compete with mob x.

csv8 · 24-02-2014, 12:44 AM

Allan Joyce must go..incompetent manager...

gtfpv · 24-02-2014, 12:47 AM

i'm just glad we now have a new govt thats doing a great job looking after all of us . i think Australia made the right choice . the proof is everywhere now .

Smoke Pursuit · 24-02-2014, 01:16 AM

That's bullshit gtfpv.. Just unlucky timing for the Libs... Don't forget who and where the unions come from! The same unions that make labour too expensive and uncompetitive! As for a good news subject Bunnings will be employing an extra 6000 people in qld.

ILLaViTaR · 24-02-2014, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

There was a current affair program 2 or three weeks ago about the Qantas woes, it looked very much (the high ups)they made very poor business decisions buying a shed load of planes they didn't need trying to compete with mob x.

But we're in a new decade now where the opecs and woolworths of the world have it tough unless they monopolize their industries along with new ones. Even shell can't even afford to do business here, it obviously needed to monopolize another industry in order to survive, like skate shoes or something. See Qantas won't survive the economy unless it's gets it's moon-based aviation battle station built within 5yrs and starts rebadging cessna's to compete with mob x as you say. It needs to monopolize those 2 new industries to survive according to the current state of things. That's the golden rule 2 new industries to survive like self branded food and fuel for example.

But ultimately this is all because 85 wastes of life have more money than half the worlds population... and sit it in trust/limbo instead of the economy meaning our economy is running on half it's blood supply. If all those rich ***** spents all that money imagine how much richer EVERYONE would be. Imagine how it would work, there'd be an incomprehensible demand for productivity and labour you could practically start another western country out of it lol.

Problem is these people are supposed to stimulate the economy but they just hoard it in trusts. Which is why they need to go. The money needs to keep circling otherwise it all rots.

cheap · 24-02-2014, 05:59 AM

So who exactly are these 85 people that seem to be the nexus of all evil, name them.

ILLaViTaR · 24-02-2014, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheap

So who exactly are these 85 people that seem to be the nexus of all evil, name them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashi...llion-poorest/

Madaya · 24-02-2014, 07:48 AM

I think I'll pack my bags and move to the next planet (only kidding).

'All I want is a room somewhere, far away from the cold night air'...

And that is all I wish for my kids. Enough to be able to turn on a tap and have good water come out - just the basics we all know to be able to enjoy life - be able to buy a Falcon (err, make that a Ford) and not a Ferrari.

If you want a Ferrari, work hard and buy one. Using money to buy and sell money sounds smart, makes people rich, but at the end of the day, buys poverty for many.

MAD · 24-02-2014, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

But we're in a new decade now where the opecs and woolworths of the world have it tough unless they monopolize their industries along with new ones. Even shell can't even afford to do business here, it obviously needed to monopolize another industry in order to survive, like skate shoes or something. See Qantas won't survive the economy unless it's gets it's moon-based aviation battle station built within 5yrs and starts rebadging cessna's to compete with mob x as you say. It needs to monopolize those 2 new industries to survive according to the current state of things. That's the golden rule 2 new industries to survive like self branded food and fuel for example.

But ultimately this is all because 85 wastes of life have more money than half the worlds population... and sit it in trust/limbo instead of the economy meaning our economy is running on half it's blood supply. If all those rich ***** spents all that money imagine how much richer EVERYONE would be. Imagine how it would work, there'd be an incomprehensible demand for productivity and labour you could practically start another western country out of it lol.

Problem is these people are supposed to stimulate the economy but they just hoard it in trusts. Which is why they need to go. The money needs to keep circling otherwise it all rots.

That's a great sum-up of the situation.

It's not like Lindsay Fox, Gerry Harvey, Gina Rinehart, ect. need to expand their wallets any further. The only reason for them to cut costs now is to please the shareholders. Every saving they make is money in their pocket, and someone out of a job.

You can't use it when you're dead.

cheap · 24-02-2014, 10:53 AM

I'm struggling to find the connection between Qantas's problems and 85 of the richest people in the world.

Qantas's situation would seem to be the result of (in no particular order) ....

Bad management decisions (past and present)
Hostile Unions
Monopolistic global practices
Non helpful government policies

Franco Cozzo · 24-02-2014, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DASH GT

That's bullshit gtfpv.. Just unlucky timing for the Libs... Don't forget who and where the unions come from! The same unions that make labour too expensive and uncompetitive! As for a good news subject Bunnings will be employing an extra 6000 people in qld.

Yeah mate because we can really compete with the lady boy in Thailand getting paid 15 cents a decade working 18 hour shifts 8 days a week.

Who was it who signed the FTA with Thailand?

Adamz Ghia · 24-02-2014, 04:27 PM

My cat was run over recently. Bloody unions...

MAD · 24-02-2014, 04:33 PM

Blaming gov = blaming unions

Same same.

Adamz Ghia · 24-02-2014, 05:02 PM

These threads always end up the same, everyone should hate unions while the governments are out to get us while we sleep. And it's always the usual people who can't accept here's good and bad points for both...

**GasoLane** · 24-02-2014, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

But ultimately this is all because 85 wastes of life have more money than half the worlds population... and sit it in trust/limbo instead of the economy meaning our economy is running on half it's blood supply. If all those rich ***** spents all that money imagine how much richer EVERYONE would be. Imagine how it would work, there'd be an incomprehensible demand for productivity and labour you could practically start another western country out of it lol.

Problem is these people are supposed to stimulate the economy but they just hoard it in trusts. Which is why they need to go. The money needs to keep circling otherwise it all rots.

And these 85 probably run companies that are looking after your Super investments.

ILLaViTaR · 25-02-2014, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

And these 85 probably run companies that are looking after your Super investments.

Yeah tell me about it, they get full benefits/control over my money to feed THEIR growth/self interests and if I want to do the exact same thing myself because it's MY money, I'm not legally allowed too until I'm 55yrs old or something. Labour made super a little bit better for the payg earner allowing some self management but it still doesn't compare to a family trust/being able to fully self manage your own money.

So if the opportunity arises and someone has a property with a market value of 500k and they're willing to sell it to me for $350k I have to give securing my future a miss because I'm not legally allowed to access my own money to afford such a bargain until I'm 55. I have to give that house a miss because Gina Reinhart is using the funds for a desert expeditions instead. Which if any reward from arises she gets the lionshare as usual, not me.

The banks would go bankrupt if people could manage their own supers, no plethora of wealth for them to play games with, and no one would have mortgages the debts would be greatly reduced. I love how the concept of super is to secure your future when it's regulations ultimately end you up in 200k-300k extra debt in interest over 25yrs (depending on your mortgage and interest from super) than if you had the money instead included into your income and paid it off during that 25yrs instead of afterwards when you're in your 50's.

ILLaViTaR · 25-02-2014, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheap

I'm struggling to find the connection between Qantas's problems and 85 of the richest people in the world.

Qantas's situation would seem to be the result of (in no particular order) ....

Bad management decisions (past and present)
Hostile Unions
Monopolistic global practices
Non helpful government policies

That would be the connection right there lol.

A rough example would be Bunnings are now providing 6000 jobs in QLD which is said to destroy all the remaining independent hardware stores (so who knows how many jobs/legacys will be lost/gained as a result of the expansion). Now either bunnings could stay the way it is without the need to expand in a good position or it can expand and destroy the independents in an attempt to grow. So Bunnings expands and establishes itself but hang on they're not selling what they projected for some reason! Because their numbers/projected growth was always too optimistic and greedy, so then bunnings becomes another ford/holden because it over-expanded and didn't meet the optimistic demand it expected too with stock sitting on grass. This effects the company as a whole as they're constantly required to aid their non flourishing QLD sector only to have it take away from their profitable regions. Eventually QLD all closes up due to never taking off, a failed project, 6000 people lose their jobs along with all the rest to recover all the infastructure for the attempted growth etc. The company as a whole is far worse off and could even be in a situation of bankruptcy as a result of doing so poorly in qld. All the former independant store owners never found work due to having no other skillsets/motivation and have been unemployed for years. They no longer have the capital/motivation to magically set their stores back up again. Or Bunnings could succeed at growing in it's QLD area then funding the money for their next attempt at growth, which will eventually become vga chipsets or something.

Once companies get this big they don't need to keep growing but they don't stop growing and will never stop obviously until it all goes wrong for them, then everyone is ******. That's the connection to Qantas and those 85 other tycoons and that's the problem.

cheap · 25-02-2014, 06:17 AM

You could invest your money/super in West Farmers, likewise you could do the same for Qantas. I would presume you have some money invested somewhere and want to see a return.

As for Lindsay Fox, Gerry Harvey, Gina ... if one of these people invested heavily in Qantas (to save the day so to speak) would that be a good or bad thing?

**buggerlugs** · 25-02-2014, 08:44 AM

Now they are saying this morning up to 5000 jobs to go.............

NAK302 · 25-02-2014, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

Allan Joyce must go..incompetent manager...

this

he'll clean out first then go quietly when there's less light on him, grub.

**GasoLane** · 25-02-2014, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheap

As for Lindsay Fox, Gerry Harvey, Gina ... if one of these people invested heavily in Qantas (to save the day so to speak) would that be a good or bad thing?

Perish the thought.

Lindsay would be using the cheapest planes to save fuel.
Gerry would be advertising Fly Now with 3years interest free terms.
Gina would use 3rd world pilots and crew .

cheap · 25-02-2014, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Perish the thought.

Lindsay would be using the cheapest planes to save fuel.
Gerry would be advertising Fly Now with 3years interest free terms.
Gina would use 3rd world pilots and crew .

Be careful what you wish for

The Qantas Act which limits foreign ownership to 49% is going to be amended. It will be open slather now.

In hindsight maybe it wouldn't have been such a bad idea to seek assistance from a few rich Aussies to invest in it. However after reading your comments (even though in jest) I can see why there isn't any point.

Good bye "Aussie" Qantas ...

So let the whinging and whining begin, damn Newscorp, damn the foreigners, damn globalization, damn those evil 85 people. Of course everyone could see this coming - couldn't they?

05_ENFORCER · 25-02-2014, 02:01 PM

I am off to do a Chinese language course, I'll be back shortly................... zài jiàn

.

kaniSS · 25-02-2014, 02:09 PM

I'm not surprised. Its tough doing business in Australia thanks to our brain dead governments.

**Silver Ghia** · 25-02-2014, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

Allan Joyce must go..incompetent manager...

He must go NOW!! Without any golden handshake or whatever, he doesn't deserve anything. The groundings in 2011 by him was pure and plain vandalism. Now he cuts 5000 jobs and wants money from the government! Ludicrous.

Have a read of this article. I don't normally agree with unionists, but this is an exception.

And I certainly hope the government doesn't give the airline a red cent. When they helped Qantas by dictating who should buy Ansett back in the 1990's, led to the demise of that airline. I can see why Virgin is worried.