Qantas Sacks 300

[Bob38S]

Why is it always the little bloke's job that gets done?

Want to save some $$$$ - get rid of the higher ups who produce nothing other than descision making and the smartness of that is certainly open to conjecture.

I know we are only a small market but surely firing workers is similar to shooting yourself in the foot - If you aren't working and getting paid - then how can any company expect you to purchase their goods or services.

I pay extra in the supermarket [you can stuff your Californian grapes Mr "Fresh food people"]and hardware stores to buy Australian [if I can] and only buy others if there is no Aussie product available - call me dumb etc - I call it buying my kid [and yours] a job.

Bob

[Bodgy]

Why is it always the little bloke's job that gets done?


Bob

It's not, middle management is always the first on the list. They don't win much sympathy tho (nor deserve it) and aren't unionised.

It's not a moral issue, the Quantas directors owe a duty to the shareholders. A saving of a bit of a percent turns to many millions on the bottom line.

We live in a global economy, Quantas has to compete with Emirates, BA, United etc. Does anyone seriously think that 'protectionism' actually could work anymore?

As others have pointed out, in Oz we currently have a net lack of bodies.

Who ever said you had to be a Quantas call centre operator all your life? Why should anyone expect a guarantee of stable employment?

Beats me.

[silentC]

Nothing lasts forever. There might have been a time when QANTAS was a job for life, just like it was in the Commonwealth Bank. Not any more. What seems like a status quo to we mere mortals is really just a blip on the timeline.

Last night I had the displeasure of hearing John Howard on the 7:30 report referring to the US as "the greatest nation the world has ever seen" not once, but twice, in those exact words.

He's obviously not heard of the Roman Empire, which ran for something like 1500 years and held dominion over nearly 6 million square kilometres. Now that is a status quo. In fact, the US is paltry by comparison. They've barely even made 200 years from start to finish.

Companies will always act selfishly, that's what they do. They're not there for any other reason than to make money for their investors. Why else would you set up business?

[Greg Ward]

You mightn't like the US or even our current prime minister, but the wealth or Rome, or even the population of Rome were nothing compared to the current US.
They Romans may have controlled a greater territory, but the Yanks have control over your kids throgh the entertainment industry, your world including this forum through their introduction of the internet and Mr Gates and have a controlling interest far beyond their borders, forget Iraq, they have 100000 troops in Korea and 30K in Japan, so many in Europe and elsewhere I wouldn't know.
They represent 25% of the global GDP and God know how much wealth.
Sure Ghengis Khan, Alexander and Augustus were powerful, but I'm afraid Mr Bush has a few more bangs in his pocket.
Regards
Greg

[silentC]

OK, the 'internet' was created in the US, but the world wide web, which is what you are surfing now, was created in Switzerland.

As for the rest, well, you may be right but tell me about it when the US has been around for 1000+ years. It's all relative. The British Empire was pretty vast in it's day. Give us the figures based on the population then and now.

[Rocker]

He's obviously not heard of the Roman Empire, which ran for something like 1500 years and held dominion over nearly 6 million square kilometres. Now that is a status quo. In fact, the US is paltry by comparison. They've barely even made 200 years from start to finish.

SilentC,

Although Rome was supposed to have been founded in 753 BC, and the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD, Rome did not enter its imperial phase until the time of Julius Caesar, who became dictator in 44 BC. So the Roman empire as such lasted only about 500 years.

It is arguable that the British Empire, at its peak in the early 20th Century, had a much wider spread of real power than does the US nowadays. Although the Americans can certainly inflict some painful 'shock and awe' when they feel like it, they have been pretty unsuccesful in their military efforts in modern times in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I believe their one and only military success in the last half century has been in Grenada When it comes to cultural and technological influence, they have virtually dominated the entire globe, but their ability to impose their will on foreign nations has been pretty limited.

Rocker

[silentC]

From Wikipedia:

The end of the Roman Empire is traditionally placed on 4 September 476, as the Western Roman Empire fell to Germanic invaders. However, this view does not recognize the Eastern Roman Empire, known to modern-day historians as the Byzantine Empire, which maintained Roman legal and cultural traditions. Developing a distinct Greek Christian character, it managed to survive and even thrive for a millennium after the fall of the West, eventually being conquered on 29 May 1453 by the Ottoman Empire.

America's status in the world is relatively recent, isn't it? They weren't really much of a force until after World War II. So in reality, 'the greatest nation the world has ever seen' has only been 'great' for 50 odd years.

I suppose more than anything else I object to our so called leader fawning the way he does. Also, I suppose it depends on what you term 'great'.

[Bodgy]

The Poms were far more able to enforce their will, militarily than are the Seppo's, both Empires had global economic domination.

Poms had over 200 years, and far more Gun Boats went up far more rivers than the Seppo's could ever dream of.

In terms of pro rata population and geographic domination, Gengis Khan would be up there.

[Zed]

Mr Bush has a few more bangs in his pocket.
Regards
Greg

you are so wrong Greg.

Rome was the epitome of science, militarism, culture and politics IN ITS DAY. what your comparing is akin to comparing Ivan Milat to Attila the hun, or better yet modern day Lichenstien to USSR in its heyday.

[Greg Ward]

Hyperbole is one thing Zed:

But You have forgotten China, that Celestial kingdom that in exchange for silk and trinkets, sucked all the gold and silver from Rome and bought about its downfall. Forget about Lichenstein, the Chinese knew what was what.
And there was a lot of gold in S and central America that wasn't Roman as well.... well that went to Europe which helped them up but that's another story.

I suppose now, you'll draw conclusions about current China sucking all the gold and silver from the US. which will mean that US senators may wear silk and we'll have another Boxer rebellion

Regards
Greg

[Bodgy]

you are so wrong Greg.

Rome was the epitome of science, militarism, culture and politics IN ITS DAY. what your comparing is akin to comparing Ivan Milat to Attila the hun, or better yet modern day Lichenstien to USSR in its heyday.

Are you inferring that Gengis wasn't a SNAG?

PS Its pizzing down in the city - just in time for cricket. Zed will miss his chance to road test a box.

[silentC]

I suppose now, you'll draw conclusions about current China sucking all the gold and silver from the US. which will mean that US senators may wear silk and we'll have another Boxer rebellion

So when little Johnnie says that the US is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, he's talking about material wealth? Does that make James Packer the greatest Australian we've ever seen? I hope not

[bitingmidge]

So when little Johnnie says that the US is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, he's talking about material wealth? Does that make James Packer the greatest Australian we've ever seen? I hope not

I think you're mistaken silent, phonetically (by the way, why is phonetic spelt with a "ph"?) you have heard correctly, but what Mr John the magnificent actually said was that "the US is the gratest nation the world has ever seen"

I think I agree with that.

P

[Greg Ward]

Wealth always confuses me.
After my first billion, I think I'd take it easy.

Greatest Australian?
No, not Packer, and although the US is the wealthist nation. I think they have a few more attributes, but let's leave that for now.

Phillip? no, he was a Pom.
Macquarie? Nope Scottish I think
Parkes? Don't know enough history. Perhaps it's like this.......
If you're left wing, It'd be Whitlam or Hawke or Curtin or perhaps a cricketer or two
If You're right wing, perhaps Oppenheimer or Menzies or maybe a rugby winger

You know what... I can't really think of a great Australian.

Now that's a real worry.

Greg

[silentC]

Or maybe he meant "grey test" (actually that would probably be "gray test"). Are they going to start testing pensioners for their driver's license there now?