- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Posts
- 15,360
Ah yes, totally forgot about that one. ThanksYes they were.
It increased shares by 25%.
Ah yes, totally forgot about that one. ThanksYes they were.
AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements
Agreed. Sucessors generally tend to 'steady' the ship in most cases then implement (if any) plans after at least a year in the role.I doubt we'll see any significant changes in the near future.
It's easy to run an airline when it's making money - the challenge for the CEO is when that stops.
Will Ms Hudson continue the "don't spend capital" mantra?
Look at her full background. She has less of a finance background than your typical CFO.Anyone have any thoughts on how someone from a finance background will lead the company?
Contrary i think. The CEO will have a huge influence over capital expenditure. The QF CEO sits on the boardultimately more Board driven than CEO
You make some very good points and I agree. Vanessa IS very well qualified to continue to sail the ship (er fly the plane) on a steady course. She is very well qualified and as pointed out earlier well grommed for the CEO role from multiple senior positions over the years. No question there.Who wants change?
I think that's where this thread is divided in two groups. Those not happy with the announcement weren't happy with QF to begin with.
I'm thinking there's much greater risk of QF getting worse with a new CEO, so the internal hire (of someone more than qualified) is a safe pair of hands IMO. I don't think QF's perfect, but when I look at similar airlines over the last 15 years, QF has fared rather well.
I also look at AJ's tenure for the entire time (2008-now), not just since 2020.
Agree.Contrary i think. The CEO will have a huge influence over capital expenditure. The QF CEO sits on the board
And it's clear Hudson had a major role in successfully traversing Covid financial minefield . If that's not evidence of financial nous, I'm not sure what is.
But all that is for management. I, as a customer, would like to see better customer service -not in the routine of cabin service but in the exceptions of delays and cancellations, and better employee relations. It always causes me as a customer a bit of sadness when employees put on a smile but in reality they are not happy.
Ostensibly, the share buyback was to manage "shareholder capital". So one one level the capital return represents excess capital that could not be deployed efficiently (economically) One would argue that it could have been used to underwrite a newer fleet but thats another story. However during the Rona19-21 shareholders were not tapped on the shoulder for capital. Why? because that would dilute the share price and AJ's haul
For me, shareholder benefits should come as a result of efficient and proper company management, not financial wizadry.
I would find it hard to find anyone who could not find reasons to be disappointed with QF over the past years (not just 2020+) - specially members of this forum - many of us have experienced both the greats QF can be, and seen when things go so so bad. Even the most ardent fanboy (or person) would have to admit there have been ongoing issues that need addressing. To think otherwise would be putting one's head in the sand. As a P1, I've been spared much of the grief of the long call wait times, the ticketing issues(HBA usually do things right the first time) and so on but knowing that benefit means I absolutely see the effects on most other customers - or just read a few threads here).
What one website calls 'Eastern Australia' has a median turboprop age of 21.3 years: not as bad as ZL, but not exactly built yesterday. That however is a smaller problem, financially speaking for the QF Group.
I agree very much with the statement that they have to have a REAL focus on IT. The Qantas system is terrible (possibly by design, but never assign to malice something that can be explained by incompetence). I just don't think that investment should be problematic for a company that just recorded $500M profit. Overhauling their IT system might take time (probably a multi-year project tbh), but it is an investment.and by extension have a REAL focus on the IT (get the tools right, much of your customer service problems go away) and taking steps to improve the product for customers (which they have been slowly). Much of these things, of course, require real investment and that's going to be problematic.
And why wouldn't they. QF is making huge profits.
Say what you will about AJ - but he's leaving QF in a much better place than when he found it. In his early years they were talking about the possibility of QF becoming a domestic only airline - or the merger with BA to stay afloat.
Who wants change?
I think that's where this thread is divided in two groups. Those not happy with the announcement weren't happy with QF to begin with.
I find it mildly amusing that Ms Hudson is focusing on restoring the brands image and improving the customer experience. I know there's the context of "since covid" in that, but it does kind of imply that her predecessor did not focus on either of those things.
As I said before, AJ leaves QF in a better state than when he found it.
Some will mourn - some will re-joyce.If an older fleet is "better", yes. But many may disagree.
VH-CEObtw I wanted to add to my above comments about VH (hey, that's our registration prefix )....
Some will mourn - some will re-joyce.
And why wouldn't they. QF is making huge profits.
Say what you will about AJ - but he's leaving QF in a much better place than when he found it. In his early years they were talking about the possibility of QF becoming a domestic only airline - or the merger with BA to stay afloat.
I think the only people who want a re-joyce are the shareholders and the board.some will re-joyce
I find it mildly amusing that Ms Hudson is focusing on restoring the brands image and improving the customer experience. I know there's the context of "since covid" in that, but it does kind of imply that her predecessor did not focus on either of those things.