Thread: Qantas Sacks 300

One might hazard a guess that it's more jobs going off shore to a cheaper job market and probably contracted,who knows for sure!!:mad:

Cheers

So do you guys currently pay more to fly Qantas?

Or do you take the cheapest fare you can find, maybe from the company that Qantas owns but isn't subject to the same labour costs perhaps?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
P

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Or do you take the cheapest fare you can find, maybe from the company that Qantas owns but isn't subject to the same labour costs perhaps?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
P

Nope to the above, have always flown Qantas with the exception of the access to areas from WA that they don't cater readily to.

Cheers

The whole moving to India thing is getting out of hand. It sucks.

Well said Scott.

Al

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

So do you guys currently pay more to fly Qantas?

Or do you take the cheapest fare you can find, maybe from the company that Qantas owns but isn't subject to the same labour costs perhaps?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
P

Have to agree
70% of domestic air travel involves discound tickets.

Are those who don't like companies going off-shore for some services prepared to pay full-price when they travel?


ian

Originally Posted by John Saxton

Nope to the above, have always flown Qantas with the exception of the access to areas from WA that they don't cater readily to.

Hmm me too, and I have half a million FF points to prove it..:eek: Like many who fly a lot, flying somewhere for a holiday isn't high on my priorities!

HOWEVER

With regard to offshore labour: if you don't want it, STOP buying stuff based on price. I don't want to sound like Dick Smith here, but you've got two choices, pay more, or let business lower overheads.

P (Currently paying floor tilers $60 per hour, and they think that's ok...not a first home buyer among them)

Anybody here bank Westpac?

Well, most of what you do banking wise with WP run's on a mainframe (yes, they really do still exist )

Did you know that all of the tech support of those (pretty complex) systems is being off shored to China?

Probably you don't know because it hasn't been in the papers but it's happening just the same.

The next time your ATM goes down, I suggest you place your call to the Shenzen Autonomous Region.

Originally Posted by woodsprite

If I was wealthy enough to own shares in anything apart from my own home, and IF I owned shares in Qantas, NAB, and any one of a few hundred other companies, I would sell them! At the end of the day it is the greedy shareholders who must answer for such revolting behaviour by big business.

If you have any superannuation at all, you probably do own shares in those companies albeit indirectly.

I would be interested in seeing what you think a reasonable return on investment is for a "greedy shareholder" and why you think Qantas' dividend of around 6% is so outrageous?

Why isn't taking a capital gain on your house just as morally reprehensable as business making a profit?

Do you know many Australians Qantas employ currently?

The figure I have found was 38,000 for 2005, representing an increase of 12.5% of the number employed in 2004. That's right, if the report I read is correct, Qantas increased its workforce by 4000 people last year. Where were you guys when that happened??

I didn't see anyone saying thanks! I didn't hear the cheer squad. Jolly good, one for king and country what???

So, with these cuts, Qantas have a net increase of 3600 staff in two years.

Where's the problem?

No, I don't have shares in Qantas, and am terribly concerned that in the history of Aviation, more money has been lost in bankruptcies, than the total profit of all airlines in history.

Not exactly the sort of business you can take your eye off for a second I'd say!

P

Well yes, but what is the breakdown of these jobs?

Are they skilled (highly or otherwise) or are they schytekicker jobs that pay minimum wage?

I don't know the answer but I'd sure like to see the un-biased figures.

Originally Posted by craigb

or are they schytekicker jobs that pay minimum wage?

Or are they schytekicker jobs that over the years have been drummed up far in excess of their real value, like the IT ones?

Given the argument, what does it matter?

I'm even more curious, 0.75% of the workforce moving elsewhere won't save 0.75% of the labour bill. If the labour bill was 10% of the operating cost (and I haven't bothered to research it) 1% of 10% means a miniscule saving.

You don't suppose it's a bit of a wake-up call to try to get rid of some of the well entrenched, expensive work practices that the airline with the red bodies and the ones with the orange tails don't have to pay for do you?

Relax boys and girls, we have a skills shortage in this country, a surplus of jobs. That means that everyone is buying stuff and flying places.

When every last job is in India and China, no one here will be able to afford to shop, or go away, and the pendulum will turn. Or do you suppose the businesses concerned might figure that out before we all run out of spending money?

P

"Relax boys and girls, we have a skills shortage in this country, a surplus of jobs. That means that everyone is buying stuff and flying places."



Bet the 300 sacked folk and their families are delighted to know that! Nothing better than being a martyr for the cause. Still don't see the benefits of sacking people here so that somebody on the other side of the world can have one (except if you are the person on the other side of the world).

6% profit? no not much on $100.00 - 6% on several million though?

Interesting argument though and good to see differing viewpoints. I am saying that as each month goes by I seem to see yet another company sacking people here and employing people in other countries to do pretty much the same work. I don;t like it.

Hi all,

I was thinking about this stuff this morning.
I'm going to say the same as most other people, but in my own inimitable style.
Share holders in any company are in it for the money. Theonly way to get money traditionally was to work smart or to gain market share at the expense of oppostion, through better service and product.
Shareholders expect around 10% growth PA and the managerial staff of companies often fudge forecasts to appease those demands. Something has to give. You can forget board members or CEO's to accept remuneration linked to productivity or ROI, so something has to give. Thus operating costs must decrease and its cheaper for many reasons to outsource overseas. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
Add to thisthe constant barrage of advertising saying CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP, and the real devaluation of the value of a persons worth and you end up with a population preaped to accept the Lowest Common Denominator, whether it be furniture, food, cars, or whatever.
Since we are by and large the shareholders in these corporations, demanding maximum income, yet refuse to pay for a quality product built in Australia, or by a company that is Australian owned, we are ourown wosrt enemy. As I have said before, the new Austalian Ethic is
"Pay me more, charge me less and bugger everyone else."
It's time to realise that, "as you sow so shall you reap" and that by screwing your neighbor, you're really screwing youself and your country.

Regards

Rob

Originally Posted by woodsprite

sacking people here and employing people in other countries to do pretty much the same work

They reckon in economic terms, the difference between a recession and a depression is as follows

When the bloke next door loses his job, that's a recession.

When you lose yours, that's a depression.

Cheers,

P