27th February Big Qantas announcement

[Happy Trails]

And the Fair Work Australia report at the time gave the cost of the shutdown at $70 million and the cost of the preceeding industrial action at $68 million.

And didn't Qantas subsequently claim a total closer to $200m for the grounding?

 

[drron]

And didn't Qantas subsequently claim a total closer to $200m for the grounding?

No.The total losses were close to $200 million.They also said $50 million for loss of loyalty etc but not all of that was due to the grounding.Some due to the previous industrial action.This was the QF submission to FWA and was accepted without argument by all parties.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

Warren Buffet on airlines as an investment-

Well, airlines haven't been a good investment. But the under-priced airfares and transport charges are effectively a subsidy for the rest of the world economy - aka invest in things that use airlines, rather than airlines themselves. As they say: what's the fastest way to become a millionaire? Be a billionaire and buy an airline

 

[Oxy]

A very rational opinion of QF's current management, no spin or excuses required.

Qantas must learn to navigate rough weather

 

[dajop]

A very rational opinion of QF's current management, no spin or excuses required.

Qantas must learn to navigate rough weather

Interesting. Some good points, but I think the comparison with the amount of profit Dixon accrued whilst he was at the helm was a bit pointless, simply because if VA collapsed (like AN did 6 months after Dixon became CEO) and went out of business, and DL pulled out of LAX-SYD (like NZ did), QF would start accruing the sort of profits that they did under Dixon. One could even suggest that Sep 11, far from being an obstacle to navigate as the author suggests, contributed to the lack of suitors for AN and allowed QF to increase capacity very quickly to pick up demand (after taking on AA orders that were surplus to needs following 9-11), thus actually helped QF.

 

[Kolo]

A very rational opinion of QF's current management, no spin or excuses required.

Qantas must learn to navigate rough weather

I think this reflects the growing realisation thet the only way forward for QF is with new management. Telstra is a good example. Remeber Sol Trujillo and the three amigos? Fought with everyone while the company suffered. They went and the conciliatry David Thodey became CEO. Telstra is not perfect but the softly softly approach has seen it out of the bad news headlines and its share price at the highest since the T1 float. A fresh start is what QF needs to win back its reputation, share price and affection from people like me.

 

[moa999]

Telstra gained from a substantial change from govt policy and a massive $$ cheque to buy some of its assets that in most cases were 50 years old and in pretty bad state.

Qantas just keeps getting punished by government policy and inaction.
While agree a change in management might create some short term new respect in the workforce, the reality is Qantas needs a massive change in a lot of ways, including workforce relations, and that means whether it is Joyce or someone else at the helm I expect the mood won't be great for some time.

 

[medhead]

And one suspects they would have more insight into the direction of the company and the extent - or not - of the crisis (vs political posturing), than the average member of the public, or even average AFF member.

Utter rubbish. Unless you're suggesting that the CEO and board have failed in their statutory duty to ensure the market is informed.

 

[medhead]

Completely unsurprising. A CEO who can't accept his responsibilities being back by a PM who thinks it is perfectly acceptable abrogate responsibility on the basis of the best information available, even when someone dies. A PM who wishes to hold his predecessor to a standard that he can't even accept for his ministers or himself. A PM who doesn't even know that the customers are the ones paying the carbon tax. Misleading the Australian public and using Qantas for political point scoring.

Yet people here are supporting this appalling behaviour.

 

[amaroo]

I think this reflects the growing realisation thet the only way forward for QF is with new management. Telstra is a good example. Remeber Sol Trujillo and the three amigos? Fought with everyone while the company suffered. They went and the conciliatry David Thodey became CEO. Telstra is not perfect but the softly softly approach has seen it out of the bad news headlines and its share price at the highest since the T1 float. A fresh start is what QF needs to win back its reputation, share price and affection from people like me.

You could say that the previous Telstra management did all the heavy lifting...

Telstra in the box seat over NBN

"After years of brawling and arm-wrestling Telstra last year finalised an $11 billion NBN deal that would see it structurally separated from its copper wire network. That was a huge step and it will not be reversed, regardless of who is in power."

No doubt that AJ is clearing the same path for someone else to enjoy the feel good headlines!

 

[dajop]

Utter rubbish. Unless you're suggesting that the CEO and board have failed in their statutory duty to ensure the market is informed.

Why is it utter rubbish? Just because the market is informed, doesn't mean that every member of the public commenting on the matter, or for that matter every small shareholder, keeps abreast with each and every announcement. Yet funds with major holdings would probably take a much greater interest in what is going , would analyse each announcement, probably even have some industry expertise and therefore would have more "insight" into what is really going an than a member of the public who may just get most of their information from the mainstream media (and we all now how distorting their treatment of the facts can be). ie. the greater insight is a function of interest and expertise, not just information availability.

Also, do QF provide briefings to key analysts and fund managers? I know the company (US based) I used to work for used to regularly brief analysts and have Q&A's -and whilst information was publicly available - results of such briefings didn't make into mainstream media, but did into analyst reports and from time to time investment type journals.

 

[amaroo]

A very rational opinion of QF's current management, no spin or excuses required.

Qantas must learn to navigate rough weather

How quickly Harold forgets! He wasn't keen on the Government meddling in his backyard.... No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

"Harold Mitchell today told a Brisbane audience the reforms proposed by the Independent Media Inquiry were "cough", designed by people who did not understand free choice."

 

[Moody]

How quickly Harold forgets! He wasn't keen on the Government meddling in his backyard.... No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

"Harold Mitchell today told a Brisbane audience the reforms proposed by the Independent Media Inquiry were "cough", designed by people who did not understand free choice."

So some in the media thought that everyone should be subject to scrutiny ..... except them. Do you see a pattern emerging?

Anyway - to get back on topic : does any industry expert think that AJ and the board are doing a good job? Where can I find such commentary?

 

[straitman]

Anyway - to get back on topic : does any industry expert think that AJ and the board are doing a good job? Where can I find such commentary?

That is actually a question for this thread.

 

[medhead]

Why is it utter rubbish? Just because the market is informed, doesn't mean that every member of the public commenting on the matter, or for that matter every small shareholder, keeps abreast with each and every announcement. Yet funds with major holdings would probably take a much greater interest in what is going , would analyse each announcement, probably even have some industry expertise and therefore would have more "insight" into what is really going an than a member of the public who may just get most of their information from the mainstream media (and we all now how distorting their treatment of the facts can be). ie. the greater insight is a function of interest and expertise, not just information availability.

Also, do QF provide briefings to key analysts and fund managers? I know the company (US based) I used to work for used to regularly brief analysts and have Q&A's -and whilst information was publicly available - results of such briefings didn't make into mainstream media, but did into analyst reports and from time to time investment type journals.

Because you're suggesting institutional investors have information that is not available to everyone. Briefings are released to the market.

 

[RooFlyer]

Because you're suggesting institutional investors have information that is not available to everyone. Briefings are released to the market.

The formal briefings are released to the market, but the chit-chat that goes on before and after, and the one-on-one discussions are not. I'm not suggesting that Qantas has released information to institutions that aren't available to the market, but one would be naive to think that the average Joe Punter, relying on a company's Corporate press and ASX releases, knew as much as a company's business and future prospects as a Fund Manager for instance.

If you do believe that, let me tell you ... it ain't true!

 

[Moody]

The formal briefings are released to the market, but the chit-chat that goes on before and after, and the one-on-one discussions are not. I'm not suggesting that Qantas has released information to institutions that aren't available to the market, but one would be naive to think that the average Joe Punter, relying on a company's Corporate press and ASX releases, knew as much as a company's business and future prospects as a Fund Manager for instance.

If you do believe that, let me tell you ... it ain't true!

Yes - insider trading exists. Doesn't make it legal and there are people in jail for it.

But this is a red herring - the only people likely to be involved in insider trading are AJ and the board. Institutional investors (like all shareholders) are far more likely to be the victims of insider trading.

 

[medhead]

The formal briefings are released to the market, but the chit-chat that goes on before and after, and the one-on-one discussions are not. I'm not suggesting that Qantas has released information to institutions that aren't available to the market, but one would be naive to think that the average Joe Punter, relying on a company's Corporate press and ASX releases, knew as much as a company's business and future prospects as a Fund Manager for instance.

If you do believe that, let me tell you ... it ain't true!

Unfortunately the post I replied to suggested that institutions have a greater insight. That goes beyond what you suggest here.

 

[dajop]

Because you're suggesting institutional investors have information that is not available to everyone. Briefings are released to the market.

Where did I say that they had access to more information? I said they had more insight. There is a difference. To quote Oxford dictionary definition of insight:

The capacity to gain an accurate and deep understanding of someone or something:]

I stand by my original comment. Analysts and fund managers of funds that have chosen to invest in QF, would have a different insight to the company than the average person reading The Age, ABC, or News.com.au. Not necessarily because they have access to different information, but because they have greater expertise to to understand and interpret the information that they are receiving, and greater interest in analysing each piece of information in depth, rather than relying on essentially the "headline" stuff that is reported in public media.

Just because I've read a couple of news articles and a few ASX statements, doesn't give me insight into what is really going on in the company, it gives me an idea that is all. I wonder how many people signing the petition to remove AJ (or even just advocating his removal) have read each and every QF ASX statement and the QF annual report in detail, or just "going with the flow" based on what they hear?

To share my personal views on AJ's performance - I really am not in a position to judge whether he should stay or go, I have not invested enough time and effort, and really don't have the expertise, to understand what is really going on and whether QF's future is as bad as commentators in the media (and here on AFF) make out. It seems that he has not performed well, and mismanaged the PR aspects of the job, but who knows - he may be the right person to continue with the current set of changes, and then the board brings in someone else to drive the business forward. However, I would expect that those managing funds with substantial holdings in QF would invest the time and effort to understand what is really going on and would have the expertise to make that call, and exert appropriate pressure as needed.

 

[medhead]

Where did I say that they had access to more information? I said they had more insight. There is a difference. To quote Oxford dictionary definition of insight:



I stand by my original comment. Analysts and fund managers of funds that have chosen to invest in QF, would have a different insight to the company than the average person reading The Age, ABC, or News.com.au. Not necessarily because they have access to different information, but because they have greater expertise to to understand and interpret the information that they are receiving, and greater interest in analysing each piece of information in depth, rather than relying on essentially the "headline" stuff that is reported in public media.

Just because I've read a couple of news articles and a few ASX statements, doesn't give me insight into what is really going on in the company, it gives me an idea that is all. I wonder how many people signing the petition to remove AJ (or even just advocating his removal) have read each and every QF ASX statement and the QF annual report in detail, or just "going with the flow" based on what they hear?
.

Where? In the post I quoted. You said they have a greater insight not just than you but everyone else. That requires different information and I see you haven't even ruled that out.