* Someone, I forget who, was saying that Qantas has been looking for an airline to partially buy into it for about a decade, and has had no success. Is that really because of the ownership level restrictions, or because most airlines don't see it as a good buy?
* Maybe it was the same person, maybe someone else, was saying that removing foreign ownership restrictions was no guarantee that Qantas would soon find a large foreign airline that wanted to buy into it;
* Coalition politicians have been saying that if, say, China Southern wanted to buy a large chunk, it would still need Foreign Investment Review Board approval, which is not assured.
Why then, in light of these points, should anyone assume that the Coalition's priority - removing ownership restrictions - is going to do anything to solve Qantas problems either in the short term, or ever? The general impression one gets is that its problems need addressing on a pretty quick time scale (within a couple of years, anyway.)
Some more observations:
* There is no doubt at all that Joyce has done a terrible job on the politics of the help the airline needs. This was covered on Radio National this morning. Apparently, few months ago he was talking as if the business was going to go under any minute, now he says it won't; there is a heap of confusion over whether the airline does or doesn't recover carbon tax by adding a few dollars to each fare (and I note - people get hit with large fees for paying for a discount ticket with a credit card with Jetstar which dwarfs the extra few dollars of a carbon tax); he apparently asked for an unsecured loan of $3 billion (!) originally, which is just ludicrous in anyone's books. Everyone recognises that the Asian expansion was ill considered, and it seems quite a few think the airline has made some poor choices with its fleet, although whether or not some of that predates Joyce, I have no idea.
Also, regardless of whether the unions really "deserved" Joyce's grounding a couple of years back, there is no doubt that such action hurts the public image of the airline for at least a couple of years. (Anyone who misses a wedding or important function for this reason can probably be written off from ever flying the airline again.)
And, with my shallowest hat on - Joyce just looks and sounds like someone not smart enough to run an airline. James Strong dressed and sounded like a toff, but actually, at a time when people are looking at the stability of an airline for their long term business, image counts; and Strong's image was a hell of lot more reassuring than Joyce's.
So, as much as I hate to say that I agree with a position that is being run hot at Catallaxy - yes, I think Joyce really needs to go. He needs to take responsibility and give the job to someone new who seems to know what's going on and can keep his story straight. (No pun intended.)
Update: try as I might, I can't outdo the shallowness of Judith Sloan's Qantas analysis, which now includes "Oh My God - they let their off duty pilots fly in Business Class. That just gives the public the wrong impression!"
She also makes a claim about ex-staff entitlements which I am pretty damned sure, having a close relative who is ex-staff, is not true. This has been pointed out by 2 people in comments already, and Judith has retreated to "well, maybe that just applies to some categories of ex-staff." How about clarifying your claim in the actual post, you careless ideological warrior?
Update 2: Good Lord. About half a dozen people on the thread have now told Judith she's wrong about the hotels, and that having staff sitting in spare business class seats is routine across the industry, costs the airline nothing, and on long distance lets them catch a bit of sleep, which most people think is a good idea for pilots and even cabin crew But she's insisting this is a bad look. It's about time The Australian updated her pic:
Update 4:
The Joyce spin on the carbon tax, which allows one person in Qantas to say it is not a factor, and then for the boss to contradict it, is explained here. Basically, Joyce is being slippery with the truth, if not dishonest. Even with his reduced fares, they still incorporate a carbon tax surcharge, so it is not right to claim the tax is unrecovered.
that is the problem of using peroxide. It affects your brain!
ReplyDelete