TinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2255 times:
I came across this link from another thread. I guess Jetstar is Qanta's low-cost international carrier. What's exactly the definition of 'low cost' in this case? Is it gonna be like 'no frills no thrills' WN on steroids kinda? Reason I put it that way is because apparently they will be getting either 787's or 350's and will be flying routes within 8-10 hours of Australia. I'm just not sure how you can make such an airline a 'low cost' airline.
Tzadik From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2242 times:
i just like how in a previous article/post about Jetstar and Qantas it read "Jetstar will not be competing with Qantas on profitable routes"... Always good!!! Sounds like Jetstar is bound for greatness.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6285 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2204 times:
This is from the Jetstar International thread:
Jetstar was founded as Impluse Airlines, ... then in the 1990s decided to take on Qantas & Ansett and accquired the B717s. The local businessman apparently spent quite an amount of time in Dallas, conferring with one H. Kelleher before taking this big step. All this while it was still operating as a small business and was one of the first Oz companies to use Australian Workplace Agreements. This had many advantages as far as costs go for example under this agreement the pilots salary was not tied to aircraft type, etc (in fact there was even more dogdy stuff, but we'll leave that).
When QF accquired Impulse, ... In due course Dixon & Co realised that Impulse had an impressive cost structure, at least as compared to QF and was a very flexiable orginasation so they sort to put it to use, hence Jetstar was born.
This all means that Jetstar has a very impressive cost structure, in Australian terms, in both Human Resource and flight & enginering operations costs. So it becomes the base for the international LCC.
But ONLY the base. They now have to work out all the rest including aircraft uitlisation (which is very important in LCC operations and more difficult in international operation), foreign port costs, etc, etc, etc. Nobody outside JQ, and maybe even inside, knows how they are going to do this. We will all watch with intrest.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2163 times:
Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 7): What makes you think it will be a split order? I'm not saying it won't, but I haven't heard anything to support that idea either.
Split order for QF overall, not for Jetstar. Jetstar may get just one type of aircraft but the order itself is being placed by QF for both QF's requirements and Jetstar's requirements.
But you realize my comment is colored by my own prejudices. I love the 345/346 -- despite the fact that I do believe they are not as efficient as a twin -- and would love to see them in service with an international LCC (and despite the fact that an order for 345/346 with give Leahy one more reason to shoot off with his canyon-sized mouth).
777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12976 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2141 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Word is that Jetstar will order Airbus while Qantas will order Boeing. Reason is so Jetstar crews can't demand same pay rates as what Qantas employees get on the same type of aircraft. B777s and B787s for Qantas while Jetstar will get A350s. Boeing will win around 60-70 frames out of the 100 frames that will possible be ordered
11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1747 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 9): But you realize my comment is colored by my own prejudices. I love the 345/346 -- despite the fact that I do believe they are not as efficient as a twin
Fair enough. It's actually unusual and refreshing to see someome just admit their preference. I actually think both the A345 and the A346 are very good looking airplanes. I saw an SQ A345 landing at LAX some time back, stunning. I think it's true, however, that the B772LR and the B773ER are better aircraft and I think the airlines see it that way too.
The only way I think we see a split order here is if Qantas Group decides the B787-9 is too small. At that point we will probably have to wait for a conclusion until Boeing and Airbus figure out the details of the A359 and the B7879HGW or 787-10. It would seem that EK,CX, and maybe QR are in that same boat as well.