Monday, 31 October 2011

Sack Alan Joyce AND The Qantas Board!

What follows hereunder is the transcript of an address to National Parliament by Independent MP Nick Xenophon, which has been widely reported in major Australian newspapers.  Anyone who chooses to read this transcript will undoubtedly be as alarmed as I was - this message needs to go viral so that everyone knows what the current management of Qantas is trying to do in gutting the airline for their own profit.  It certainly looks like Michael Douglas's character was right when he said "Greed is Good" because there's so many who seem to be into it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (19:37): I rise to speak tonight on an issue that is close to the hearts of many Australians, and that is the future of our national carrier, Qantas. At 90, Qantas is the world's oldest continuously running airline. It is an iconic Australian company. Its story is woven into the story of Australia and Australians have long taken pride in the service and safety standards provided by our national carrier. Who didn't feel a little proud when Dustin Hoffman uttered the immortal line in Rain Man, 'Qantas never crashed'?

While it is true that Qantas never crashes, the sad reality is that Qantas is being deliberately trashed by management in the pursuit of short-term profits and at the expense of its workers and passengers. For a long time, Qantas management has been pushing the line that Qantas international is losing money and that Jetstar is profitable. Tonight, it is imperative to expose those claims for the misinformation they are. The reality is that Qantas has long been used to subsidise Jetstar in order to make Jetstar look profitable and Qantas look like a burden. In a moment, I will provide detailed allegations of cost-shifting that I have sourced from within the Qantas Group, and when you know the facts you quickly see a pattern. When there is a cost to be paid, Qantas pays it, and when there is a profit to be made, Jetstar makes it.

But first we need to ask ourselves: why? Why would management want Qantas to look unprofitable? Why would they want to hide the cost of a competing brand within their group, namely Jetstar, in amongst the costs faced by Qantas?

To understand that, you need to go back to the days when Qantas was being privatised. When Qantas was privatised the Qantas Sale Act 1992 imposed a number of conditions, which in turn created a number of problems for any management group that wanted to flog off parts of the business. Basically, Qantas has to maintain its principal place of operations here in Australia, but that does not stop management selling any subsidiaries, which brings us to Jetstar.

Qantas has systematically built up the low-cost carrier at the expense of the parent company. I have been provided with a significant number of examples where costs which should have been billed back to Jetstar have in fact been paid for by Qantas. These are practices that I believe Qantas and Jetstar management need to explain. For example, when Jetstar took over the Cairns-Darwin-Singapore route, replacing Qantas flights, a deal was struck that required Qantas to provide Jetstar with $6 million a year in revenue. Why? Why would one part of the business give up a profitable route like that and then be asked to pay for the privilege? Then there are other subsidies when it comes to freight. On every sector Jetstar operates an A330, Qantas pays $6,200 to $6,400 for freight space regardless of actual uplift. When you do the calculations, this turns out to be a small fortune. Based on 82 departures a week, that is nearly half-a-million dollars a week or $25½ million a year.

Then there are the arrangements within the airport gates. In Melbourne, for example, my information from inside the Qantas group is that Jetstar does not pay for any gates, but instead Qantas domestic is charged for the gates. My question for Qantas management is simple: are these arrangements replicated right around Australia and why is Qantas paying Jetstar's bills? Why does Qantas lease five check-in counters at Sydney Terminal 2, only to let Jetstar use one for free? It has been reported to me that there are other areas where Jetstar's costs magically become Qantas's costs. For example, Jetstar does not have a treasury department and has only one person in government affairs. I am told Qantas's legal department also does free work for Jetstar.

Then there is the area of disruption handling where flights are cancelled and people need to be rebooked. Here, insiders tell me, Qantas handles all re-bookings and the traffic is all one way. It is extremely rare for a Qantas passenger to be rebooked on a Jetstar flight, but Jetstar passengers are regularly rebooked onto Qantas flights. I am informed that Jetstar never pays Qantas for the cost of those rebooked passengers and yet Jetstar gets to keep the revenue from the original bookings. This, I am told, is worth millions of dollars every year. So Jetstar gets the profit while Qantas bears the costs of carriage. It has also been reported to me that when Qantas provides an aircraft to Jetstar to cover an unserviceable plane, Jetstar does not pay for the use of this plane.

Yet another example relates to the Qantas Club. Jetstar passengers can and do use the Qantas Club but Jetstar does not pay for the cost of any of this. So is Qantas really losing money? Or is it profitable but simply losing money on paper because it is carrying so many costs incurred by Jetstar? We have been told by Qantas management that the changes that will effectively gut Qantas are necessary because Qantas international is losing money but, given the inside information I have just detailed, I would argue those claims need to be reassessed.

Indeed, given these extensive allegations of hidden costs, it would be foolish to take management's word that Qantas international is losing money. So why would Qantas want to make it look like Qantas international is losing money? Remember the failed 2007 private equity bid by the Allco Finance Group. It was rejected by shareholders, and thank goodness it was, for I am told that what we are seeing now is effectively a strategy of private equity sell-off by stealth.

Here is how it works. You have to keep Qantas flying to avoid breaching the Qantas Sale Act but that does not stop you from moving assets out of Qantas and putting them into an airline that you own but that is not controlled by the Qantas Sale Act. Then you work the figures to make it appear as though the international arm of Qantas is losing money. You use this to justify the slashing of jobs, maintenance standards and employment of foreign crews and, ultimately, the creation of an entirely new airlines to be based in Asia and which will not be called Qantas. The end result? Technically Qantas would still exist but it would end up a shell of its former self and the Qantas Group would end up with all these subsidiaries it can base overseas using poorly paid foreign crews with engineering and safety standards that do not match Australian standards. In time, if the Qantas Group wants to make a buck, they can flog these subsidiaries off for a tidy profit. Qantas management could pay the National Boys Choir and the Australian Girls’ Choir to run to the desert and sing about still calling Australia home, but people would not buy it. It is not just about feeling good about our national carrier—in times of trouble our national carrier plays a key strategic role. In an international emergency, in a time of war, a national carrier is required to freight resources and people around the country and around the world. Qantas also operates Qantas Defence Services, which conducts work for the RAAF. If Qantas is allowed to wither, who will meet these strategic needs?

I pay tribute to the 35,000 employees of the Qantas Group. At the forefront of the fight against the strategy of Qantas management have been the Qantas pilots, to whom millions of Australians have literally entrusted their lives. The Australian and International Pilots Association sees Qantas management strategy as a race to the bottom when it comes to service and safety. On 8 November last year, QF32 experienced a serious malfunction with the explosion of an engine on an A380 aircraft. In the wrong hands, that plane could have crashed. But it did not, in large part because the Qantas flight crew had been trained to exemplary world-class standards and knew how to cope with such a terrifying reality. I am deeply concerned that what is being pursued may well cause training levels to fall and that as a result safety standards in the Qantas Group may fall as well. AIPA pilots and the licensed aircraft engineers are not fighting for themselves; they are fighting for the Australian public. That is why I am deeply concerned about any action Qantas management may be considering taking against pilots who speak out in the public interest.

A lot of claims have been made about the financial state of Qantas international but given the information I have presented tonight, which has come from within the Qantas Group, I believe these claims by management are crying out for further serious forensic investigation. Qantas should not be allowed to face death by a thousand cuts—job cuts, route cuts, quality cuts, engineering cuts, wage cuts. None of this is acceptable and it must all be resisted for the sake of the pilots, the crews, the passengers and ultimately the future of our national carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much more sabotage can we permit of the tourism industry and the economy as a whole, from the anti-Australian terrorist tactics of Joyce and the Qantas Board?

Monday, 17 October 2011

A Cleverly Disguised Rant?

Australia's fortunes haven't exactly been soaring of late.  Although we convincingly beat New Zealand in the Trans Tasman Rugby League Test, the Wallabies went down by a truly appaling margin to the All Blacks in the Rugby (Union) World Cup and our cricket team hasn't done well in it's opening T-20 game against South Africa.  About the brightest spot for us,in fact, has been the well-deserved win by Casey Stoner in the 2011 MotoGP, which made him the world champion - a feat that matches the efforts of Aussie bike riders in years gone by.

So now we come to the true darkness that envelopes Australians now.  First, there's the HD TV scam - a rip-off of gigantic proportions that results in inferior TV reception for many people, including the author.  Of much more recent times though, there's that great big new tax that has just passed the final hurdle to become law at the start of the next financial year - the Carbon Tax.  These 2 events have one thing in common, they were both authored by a Federal Government that has been in power for 4 years and is already at least 3 years beyond its use-by date.


The Great HD TV Scam

The advent of HD TV has certainly led to a huge increase in the number of so-called "free-to-air" TV channels, most of which are mere offshoots of existing networks so competition has not actually increased.  The only thing that has really increased is the number of very old programs - sitcoms and dramas - some of which were quite dated when I was still a kid.  This has certainly not led to an increase in viewing enjoyment so it seems the only thing that has changed is that there are now more media vehicles for advertising.

What were we supposed to get out of this?  We were told that the signal quality would be better and would make a better viewing experience for all sorts of TV programs.  We were also told that HD provided more bandwidth for more TV channels and some of us might've expected this to mean better quality programs from a variety of new players who would compete witht he established networks.

What did we actually get?  Well, as already said, we got a wide range of resurrected programs from 20 and 30 years ago!  Do we really want to see these repeats in better quality vision?  If so, might we not have the right to expect that the better vision quality was actually achieved? There are many people I've spoken to who say that this has not been delivered, with many complaints about signal interference that causes loss of audio or loss of video, or both, or picture "freezing" and/or pixillation that renders each program unwatchable on far too many occasions.

It might work out better for folks in major capital cities but it doesn't seem to work that way for people in regional Australia who, yet again, have been forgotten in yet another ill-considered rush by an incompetent federal government that wants to be seen to be actually achieving something.  If this is the standard by which they want to be measured, they have failed yet again and, in the process, forced every Australian to pay out a lot of money to convert their viewing from analog to HD digital TV.

I can see many retailers who will have benefitted from this, at a time when people aren't spending money because of the generally uncertain financial times in which we find ourselves these days.  We might well have dodged a bullet with the Global Financial Crisis and might even be relatively well off in the event of the "double dip recession" that has been touted for a while now by some commentators.  Little wonder that people don't want to spend money if they don't have to - but it also seems to explain why HD TV was given such a big green light by our government.  It actually forced people to spend money that they didn't want to spend and who now have to revised their budgets and go without a few other things as a result.


A Short Note About The Ads

I'm given to understand that there are rules which say that TV stations can't make their ads more prominent than their programs.  But they do so anyway.  The volume used in programs is generally set lower than the volume of the ads, so that we get screamed at by the ads because we've had to increase the volume to hear the dialogue in the show we're watching.  How is this not against the law?

For the benefit of advertisers, their agents and the commercial TV stations, here's a tip.  When you put on an ad that really screams at us - like the Harvey Norman ads - people like me hit the mute button straight away and don't put the sound back on until the program starts again.  You have, therefore, lost everything you were trying to achieve with every other ad that followed the Harvey Norman type ad!

Whatever happened to the quiet, clever, funny ads that we all loved to watch, some 20 years ago?


The Carbon Tax

What a brainstorm this was!  Yet again, the feral government (pun intended) didn't think this through, much less did they have a mandate for it.  There are many in the community who are self-funded early retirees who will receive none of the compensation on offer from the government.  They access no federal services and so are outside of the loop for compensation.  These retirees carefully considered their budget before taking early retirement, so that they wouldn't be a burden on the government welfare system and now they get kicked in the teeth for trying to do the right thing.

None of them could ever have envisioned this ill-conceived, ill-considered tax in the financial planning for their retirement, as those plans had to be made years ago, when there was no such tax - but there was a promise by Julia Gillard that she would not introduce this measure.  So thanks once again to Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan for delivering us into evil rather than from it!  I'm sure that you're very proud of yourselves for kicking your fellow Australians - people who've worked harder in their lives than either of you are ever likely to know, much less comprehend.

Many people who know me also know that I've been a staunch Liberal voter my whole life.  They also know that I'm quite disenchanted by the idea of having Tony Abbott as our next Prime Minister because I don't think he has any more clues than the government that he will most certainly replace at the next election.  Despite my lack of trust in Abbott, I will vote for him - mainly because there's no alternative, but also because of his promise to repeal this useless tax that will do nothing for the world's environment until all the bigger polluters take up the same challenge.

At a time when finances are so tight and the economy is far from strong, it has been foolhardy in the extreme to intoruduce this measure.  The only thing it will do is further emasculate our industry, especially the all-important export industry that is essential to a balance of trade that encourages stable economies all over the world and especially with Australia's trading partners.

In absence of a mandate for this tax, the government should've put it to a referendum.  Of course, they didn't want to do that because the history of referendums in Australia has always been "no".  Thus, the hard-working Australian populace gets a tax foistered on them at a time when they really needed financial stability for their planning.  Thus, even more money needs to be spent from budgets that were never designed to afford such an additional forced impost.

The sooner this highly destructive and incompetent government is removed, the better, though the damage will already have been done.  I can but wonder whether the National Broadband Network will be any better than another massive white elephant that sucks even more of our hard-earned money from us, without our consent.