Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I'm wondering that with the announced specification of the A35K, and specifically the new F suites, what relevance F class has on the A380?

It seems almost ludicrous to sell this as an F product compared to the A350 suites and also the offerings from SQ, EK, etc. So do they rebrand this as a "Business Premium/Plus" or look into another refurb' of the A380?

I don't see QF making another more premium product with the likes of showers. So if they're still wanting a 4 class plane, I would consider another refurb to:
10-12 (A35K grade) F Suites on the upper deck in a 1-1-1 config';
80~ J seats on the upper deck in 1-2-1;
64~ W seats on the front end of the main deck in a 2-4-2;
350~ Y seats on the main deck, 3-4-3.
Making a 504 seat config'.

But if fuel costs remain high, then making a 3 class A388 is a more practicable solution:
90~ J seats on the upper deck, 1-2-1;
28~ W seats on the rear of the upper deck, 2-3-2;
48~ W seats at the front of the main deck, 2-4-2;
400~ Y seats in 3-4-3.
Making a 566 seat config'.

The latter seems more appropriate for routes like SYD-SIN-LHR.

Cheers.

It depends if QF want to go downmarket and compete with EK, SQ etc. Is that going to be worth their while?

qf2220 wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I'm wondering that with the announced specification of the A35K, and specifically the new F suites, what relevance F class has on the A380?

It seems almost ludicrous to sell this as an F product compared to the A350 suites and also the offerings from SQ, EK, etc. So do they rebrand this as a "Business Premium/Plus" or look into another refurb' of the A380?

I don't see QF making another more premium product with the likes of showers. So if they're still wanting a 4 class plane, I would consider another refurb to:
10-12 (A35K grade) F Suites on the upper deck in a 1-1-1 config';
80~ J seats on the upper deck in 1-2-1;
64~ W seats on the front end of the main deck in a 2-4-2;
350~ Y seats on the main deck, 3-4-3.
Making a 504 seat config'.

But if fuel costs remain high, then making a 3 class A388 is a more practicable solution:
90~ J seats on the upper deck, 1-2-1;
28~ W seats on the rear of the upper deck, 2-3-2;
48~ W seats at the front of the main deck, 2-4-2;
400~ Y seats in 3-4-3.
Making a 566 seat config'.

The latter seems more appropriate for routes like SYD-SIN-LHR.

Cheers.

It depends if QF want to go downmarket and compete with EK, SQ etc. Is that going to be worth their while?

SQ is down market? Haven’t heard that before.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I'm wondering that with the announced specification of the A35K, and specifically the new F suites, what relevance F class has on the A380?

It seems almost ludicrous to sell this as an F product compared to the A350 suites and also the offerings from SQ, EK, etc. So do they rebrand this as a "Business Premium/Plus" or look into another refurb' of the A380?

I don't see QF making another more premium product with the likes of showers. So if they're still wanting a 4 class plane, I would consider another refurb to:
10-12 (A35K grade) F Suites on the upper deck in a 1-1-1 config';
80~ J seats on the upper deck in 1-2-1;
64~ W seats on the front end of the main deck in a 2-4-2;
350~ Y seats on the main deck, 3-4-3.
Making a 504 seat config'.

But if fuel costs remain high, then making a 3 class A388 is a more practicable solution:
90~ J seats on the upper deck, 1-2-1;
28~ W seats on the rear of the upper deck, 2-3-2;
48~ W seats at the front of the main deck, 2-4-2;
400~ Y seats in 3-4-3.
Making a 566 seat config'.

The latter seems more appropriate for routes like SYD-SIN-LHR.

Cheers.

I think the A380s will continue to fly as they are. They’d have a decade left at most imo and I think QF will just live with what’s fitted, especially with the 350 taking on the most premium F routes except for LAX, where there’s no EK or SQ competition.

LTEN11 wrote:

The freight figure for DPS, is that from SYD, or all Australian ports, just QF, or all carriers combined ? If it's for all carriers, from all Australian ports, your looking at 15-20 flights everyday. Taking the lowest figure of 15 flights a day, the average cargo uplift per flight is just under 2t per flight and I would wager most of that is fresh produce and again that most went on the GA and JQ widebody aircraft.

It's from all ports, although that is mostly from MEL and SYD (probably 80%). The B737s from MEL and SYD are carrying zero cargo on a sector like DPS. But that is exactly my point. I imagine, QF as a group would much rather be running A321 XLRs than the combo of B788s and B738s from MEL and SYD, carrying the cargo that the B788s carries, and having a dramatically lower combined trip cost.

LTEN11 wrote:

The XLR won't have the ability to carry much cargo anyway, you lose space for the extra fuel tanks and if the aircraft has a full passenger load, most positions will be taken up with baggage, similar problem to what the 380 has. It will be a great people mover, but will have little space left over for revenue cargo. That problem will be worse on the JQ fleet with the higher seat counts.

You're dramatically over estimating how much cargo space the tanks take up. This might shock people, but the XLR has more cargo capacity by volume than the LR since the RTCs on the XLR (as Airbus call it) takes up less space than the ACTs on the LR due to the superior and more advanced design of the RTC. Overall, it depends on the density of the cargo, but from a volumetric perspective, it's pretty good cargo capacity relative to its MTOW. A321neo has 51.7m3 in 10 ULDs and bulk. LR takes up 3 to 4 ULDs for ACTs depending on config chosen where the XLR only takes up 2 (yes, 2) for the fuel tanks. The cargo volume on the XLR is more than a whole A320! Generally the constraint on the A320 (and B738) is that it'll weight out before it bulks out, but given the massively higher MTOW, the XLR can exploit this very nicely! You cannot compare this to the A380s cargo problem which is that it has two decks of passengers, and only one deck of cargo, where it bulks out before it weights out (too many bags, and too short).

Look, It's not a WB in terms of cargo, but it's the closest thing to the B757 replacement we've seen. Just look at some of the airlines that have ordered it. Wizz Air have given the clearest indication they don't intend to use it for long haul, but for they more capable envelop than the neo. Frontier is another one.

evanb wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

The freight figure for DPS, is that from SYD, or all Australian ports, just QF, or all carriers combined ? If it's for all carriers, from all Australian ports, your looking at 15-20 flights everyday. Taking the lowest figure of 15 flights a day, the average cargo uplift per flight is just under 2t per flight and I would wager most of that is fresh produce and again that most went on the GA and JQ widebody aircraft.

It's from all ports, although that is mostly from MEL and SYD (probably 80%). The B737s from MEL and SYD are carrying zero cargo on a sector like DPS. But that is exactly my point. I imagine, QF as a group would much rather be running A321 XLRs than the combo of B788s and B738s from MEL and SYD, carrying the cargo that the B788s carries, and having a dramatically lower combined trip cost.

LTEN11 wrote:

The XLR won't have the ability to carry much cargo anyway, you lose space for the extra fuel tanks and if the aircraft has a full passenger load, most positions will be taken up with baggage, similar problem to what the 380 has. It will be a great people mover, but will have little space left over for revenue cargo. That problem will be worse on the JQ fleet with the higher seat counts.

You're dramatically over estimating how much cargo space the tanks take up. This might shock people, but the XLR has more cargo capacity by volume than the LR since the RTCs on the XLR (as Airbus call it) takes up less space than the ACTs on the LR due to the superior and more advanced design of the RTC. Overall, it depends on the density of the cargo, but from a volumetric perspective, it's pretty good cargo capacity relative to its MTOW. A321neo has 51.7m3 in 10 ULDs and bulk. LR takes up 3 to 4 ULDs for ACTs depending on config chosen where the XLR only takes up 2 (yes, 2) for the fuel tanks. The cargo volume on the XLR is more than a whole A320! Generally the constraint on the A320 (and B738) is that it'll weight out before it bulks out, but given the massively higher MTOW, the XLR can exploit this very nicely! You cannot compare this to the A380s cargo problem which is that it has two decks of passengers, and only one deck of cargo, where it bulks out before it weights out (too many bags, and too short).

Look, It's not a WB in terms of cargo, but it's the closest thing to the B757 replacement we've seen. Just look at some of the airlines that have ordered it. Wizz Air have given the clearest indication they don't intend to use it for long haul, but for they more capable envelop than the neo. Frontier is another one.

Just sticking to DPS from the East Coast, with both JQ and QF operating a 321 XLR daily, each operating with 8 X AKH containers plus bulk hold, JQ 232 seats, QF 190 seats ? I'm not sure whether they have announced a seat count yet. The JQ is going to utilise all of those 8 containers for pax bags, QF would use at least 6 or 7. Each AKH container is equal to about 66% of an AKE used on the 787 and 330, in size, volume and weight carrying ability. The 8 AKH containers are equal to about 5 AKE's. Combined JQ/QF 321XLR's with a total of 16 AKH containers will equal about 11 AKE's in total and they are needed for over 400 passenger bags if the aircraft are full, plus the bulk holds, where are you going to put any paying freight, there just won't be any room. That's the beauty of aircraft like the 787 and 330, carry a full passenger load and still carry 10 plus ton of cargo.

As I said the XLR will be a great passenger carrier, but it can't do full passengers plus meaningful freight, well not unless everyone onboard only has hand carry.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I'm wondering that with the announced specification of the A35K, and specifically the new F suites, what relevance F class has on the A380?

It seems almost ludicrous to sell this as an F product compared to the A350 suites and also the offerings from SQ, EK, etc. So do they rebrand this as a "Business Premium/Plus" or look into another refurb' of the A380?

I doubt there'll be another refurbishment on the Airbus A380 fleet in its lifetime at Qantas. Nor will it be needed, since the aircraft will be hitting 20 years old from 2028, about the usual time Qantas retires them.

Two iterations of first class will be fine. People will be well aware that the non-stop flights between Sydney/Melbourne and London, New York will have the new product and the other flights will have the old. I'm sure the older one will be cheaper, or more accurately, the product on the non-stops will cost more. Either way, it would only be for a few years until the A380 is sent to be recycled into aluminium cans, so no need to rename it or replace it. It's had its update and that'll be the last one. Makes no sense from a cost point of view to change it, otherwise they already would have with the current refurbshment.

Qantas has agreed to purchase the remaining 80% stake in Alliance (subject to Board and ACCC approval) to make QQ be wholly owned by QF.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... s-segment/

REX will undoubtedly object to the proposed takeover. No doubt that JS will have some words to say with this proposed acquisition.

BNEFlyer wrote:

Qantas has agreed to purchase the remaining 80% stake in Alliance (subject to Board and ACCC approval) to make QQ be wholly owned by QF.

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media ... s-segment/

It will be interesting to see the reaction of ACCC. They have previously expressed concern about lack of competition in regional and FIFO sectors.

Based on what ive seen in the rail sector - i think this is going to be a tough fight for QF.

The proposed sale of Glencore coal haulage assets to Aurizon or Pacific National is a good comparitor where ACCC messaging prior to the announcement of the successful purchaser was that they were going to deny PN or Aurizon owning it.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/a ... uire-grail

If they do get it across the line, the carveouts they'll have to agree to will not be small.

REX and Virgin both will have much to say about this.

Not sure how I feel about this, little sad to see another small player merged into QF.

How many AOC will they have now?
Qantas
Eastern Australian
Sunstate
Network
National jet
That must add in some admin and duplication costs. I suppose the labour savings using regionals must be substantial.

SCFlyer wrote:

REX will undoubtedly object to the proposed takeover. No doubt that JS will have some words to say with this proposed acquisition.

Rex really should have partnered with Alliance - some E-90s would maybe have been a better way for them to start and grow.

tullamarine wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

I'm wondering that with the announced specification of the A35K, and specifically the new F suites, what relevance F class has on the A380?

It seems almost ludicrous to sell this as an F product compared to the A350 suites and also the offerings from SQ, EK, etc. So do they rebrand this as a "Business Premium/Plus" or look into another refurb' of the A380?

I don't see QF making another more premium product with the likes of showers. So if they're still wanting a 4 class plane, I would consider another refurb to:
10-12 (A35K grade) F Suites on the upper deck in a 1-1-1 config';
80~ J seats on the upper deck in 1-2-1;
64~ W seats on the front end of the main deck in a 2-4-2;
350~ Y seats on the main deck, 3-4-3.
Making a 504 seat config'.

But if fuel costs remain high, then making a 3 class A388 is a more practicable solution:
90~ J seats on the upper deck, 1-2-1;
28~ W seats on the rear of the upper deck, 2-3-2;
48~ W seats at the front of the main deck, 2-4-2;
400~ Y seats in 3-4-3.
Making a 566 seat config'.

The latter seems more appropriate for routes like SYD-SIN-LHR.

Cheers.

It depends if QF want to go downmarket and compete with EK, SQ etc. Is that going to be worth their while?

SQ is down market? Haven’t heard that before.

Sorry, let me be clearer. When I mean down market, its not necessarily commenting that SQ is down market but I was using them as a proxy for the asian midpoint carriers who are catering for lower yield traffic given their geographic positioning and economies of size.

The PS A350s take QF higher in the market, charging more of a premium for their one stop and shorter total time.

The A380s currently try and serve a market somewhere around the Asian and middle eastern carriers and for SQ the QF A380s have both more first and economy but less business and premium economy . PS will probably take some of the premium pax away from the A380 services and so increasing the lower end seat counts will put them more downmarket yield wise.

So, im not saying that SQ is down market, just using an example thats probably not as accurate as it could be.

smi0006 wrote:

Not sure how I feel about this, little sad to see another small player merged into QF.

How many AOC will they have now?
Qantas
Eastern Australian
Sunstate
Network
National jet
That must add in some admin and duplication costs. I suppose the labour savings using regionals must be substantial.

SCFlyer wrote:

REX will undoubtedly object to the proposed takeover. No doubt that JS will have some words to say with this proposed acquisition.

Rex really should have partnered with Alliance - some E-90s would maybe have been a better way for them to start and grow.

The number of AOCs surely will be a factor in the ACCC deliberations. Maybe Network might have to go? Where are the competitive overlaps between Alliance and QF currently?

Rex might have tried but i wonder if their loud behaviour in the market place (ie rent seeking) might have not been attractive to Alliance which is a much more quiet and softly softly business from outside appearances.

REX's loud behaviour (or namely JS mostly) may possibly be one factor in Bain staying away from any 'potential' (very unlikely) acquisition of REX as well.

SCFlyer wrote:

REX's loud behaviour (or namely JS mostly) may possibly be one factor in Bain staying away from any 'potential' (very unlikely) acquisition of REX as well.

Bain is not really interested in REX given it is outside its current model for VA which is jet based mainline as well as FIFO which was rumoured to originally be up for disposal but I assume the profitability and potential of VARA has become impossible to resist. Of course, they may be interested in REX if the price was right but, you'd imagine that would be pretty low given the amount of capital REX's core regional business will need spent on it in the short to medium term. The REX jet operation has zero value to Bain or anyone else.

qf789 wrote:

I havent seen this before today but it seems that Qantas is also intending of upgrading PER-LHR to A350-1000 from 2026

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/up- ... -c-6668296

I find this really hard to believe. Yes, I do believe that Perth'll grow quite rapidly in the next couple of decades (I'm probably a bit biased, to be honest, but I really do think that if we play our cards right, we could become a very important city what with our abundance of lithium and Twiggy's green hydro project).

But I think it's going to be really hard for them to sell F seats. (disclaimer: this is probably just calculated optimism) Depending on how governments play their cards, in a decade or so, I see two main sources of demand for this route: corporate and VTL. Now, I think corporate demand'll exist, but it most likely won't be huge. VTL will continue growing and growing, yes. But economy on the 789 would probably be good enough.

I think what Perth really needs is more destinations, not more capacity from existing destinations. So flights like PER-FRA/CDG/NRT or HND/KUL, or even that crazy pipe dream of a PER-LAX flight would make more sense than PER-LHR on a 35K.

LTEN11 wrote:

Just sticking to DPS from the East Coast, with both JQ and QF operating a 321 XLR daily, each operating with 8 X AKH containers plus bulk hold, JQ 232 seats, QF 190 seats ? I'm not sure whether they have announced a seat count yet. The JQ is going to utilise all of those 8 containers for pax bags, QF would use at least 6 or 7. Each AKH container is equal to about 66% of an AKE used on the 787 and 330, in size, volume and weight carrying ability. The 8 AKH containers are equal to about 5 AKE's. Combined JQ/QF 321XLR's with a total of 16 AKH containers will equal about 11 AKE's in total and they are needed for over 400 passenger bags if the aircraft are full, plus the bulk holds, where are you going to put any paying freight, there just won't be any room. That's the beauty of aircraft like the 787 and 330, carry a full passenger load and still carry 10 plus ton of cargo.

As I said the XLR will be a great passenger carrier, but it can't do full passengers plus meaningful freight, well not unless everyone onboard only has hand carry.

How many bags do you think people take on these flights? Firstly, I'm not convinced QF will use the containers, but I was just making the point regarding the space. Let's assume QF's configuration of 200 pax = 200 bags. The bulk hold can take up to 1.5t of baggage although it's going to be limited by volume (usable is about 5.8 m^3), which will fit about 60 bags. The other 140 will require about 4 AKH containers (or equivalent space). Still 4 available for containers or equivalent space. While JQ will have more seats, they generally load fewer bags.

If we use your math on the bags, then an A319 or A320 cannot carry the bags for normal pax loads. Consider an A319. BA and AF carry between 142 and 144 pax on their A319s and use containerised baggage. The A319 has only 4 AKH positions, which would get you about 140 bags using my math, but only 108 to 126 bags based on yours. What you're missing is the rear bulk space which is the same on the A319, A320 and A321.

I think you've got it a little wrong about the inherent cargo space on the B787 and A330. It varies a lot. Firstly, they're able to carry that cargo because they're operating well within their limits on medium haul. That inflection point also exists, and why Airbus has put so much effort into MTOW increases for the A330. The cargo revenue payload diminishes very quickly as they stretch their legs on longer flights. For example, using the maximum revenue payload on the A330-200 only gets you a little over 4,500nm at ISA (and only 4,000nm on a -300) even though we're seeing QF fly the -200 to LAX probably with little to no cargo. So once you add in some warm temps, the A330s cannot carry its max revenue payload even to some of QF's points in Asia. So even widebodies suffer from these same issues, however, the longer the aircraft the better it gets in terms of its volume, since the marginal cost of adding length to a design is small since many of the elements that eat into volume are fixed volume costs rather than variable (i.e. the A330-300 doesn't take any more space for landing gear and avionics as the A330-200 does). So when you stretch an aircraft (like the A330, B787 or A321) you really do get the yield from the space. The A321 is unique in that it uses some of that space for the fuel, but it's still a large net increase over the A320. The XLR is great in that it actually dramatically reduces that lost space.

Again, I'm not suggesting the XLR is some heroic aircraft, but simply highlighting why an airline might wish to order it over the A321neo to fly routes well within it's range, especially given the limited risk of doing so. Not every airline orders a higher MTOW version for range although many do. The A330-300 is the perfect example, with plenty of airlines ordering the 242t version without putting them on longer routes all the time but simply to get better revenue payload on routes within its existing flight envelop. DL didn't need the 242t for transatlantic range, but enjoys the payload. Think about SQ's A350-900s regionals. Even with the derated MTOW to 250t (similar to what they did on B777-200ERs), it's still intended to allow them to exploit higher maximum structural payloads on shorter routes. The same principle applies to narrowbodies in this regard.

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

qf789 wrote:

I havent seen this before today but it seems that Qantas is also intending of upgrading PER-LHR to A350-1000 from 2026

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/up- ... -c-6668296

I find this really hard to believe. Yes, I do believe that Perth'll grow quite rapidly in the next couple of decades (I'm probably a bit biased, to be honest, but I really do think that if we play our cards right, we could become a very important city what with our abundance of lithium and Twiggy's green hydro project).

But I think it's going to be really hard for them to sell F seats. (disclaimer: this is probably just calculated optimism) Depending on how governments play their cards, in a decade or so, I see two main sources of demand for this route: corporate and VTL. Now, I think corporate demand'll exist, but it most likely won't be huge. VTL will continue growing and growing, yes. But economy on the 789 would probably be good enough.

I think what Perth really needs is more destinations, not more capacity from existing destinations. So flights like PER-FRA/CDG/NRT or HND/KUL, or even that crazy pipe dream of a PER-LAX flight would make more sense than PER-LHR on a 35K.

It all sounds a bit GT preaching to the local choir to me. For a start, they haven't ordered enough planes to do this if they are running MEL-LHR, SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK daily. There is also no real capacity increase in moving from the 789 to A35K, it is just about cabin mix given how heavily premium QF is configuring its initial A35Ks.

qf2220 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Not sure how I feel about this, little sad to see another small player merged into QF.

How many AOC will they have now?
Qantas
Eastern Australian
Sunstate
Network
National jet
That must add in some admin and duplication costs. I suppose the labour savings using regionals must be substantial.

SCFlyer wrote:

REX will undoubtedly object to the proposed takeover. No doubt that JS will have some words to say with this proposed acquisition.

Rex really should have partnered with Alliance - some E-90s would maybe have been a better way for them to start and grow.

The number of AOCs surely will be a factor in the ACCC deliberations. Maybe Network might have to go? Where are the competitive overlaps between Alliance and QF currently?

Rex might have tried but i wonder if their loud behaviour in the market place (ie rent seeking) might have not been attractive to Alliance which is a much more quiet and softly softly business from outside appearances.

There’s no competitive overlap between QQ and QF as such, but the ACCC is very concerned about competition in the FIFO sector. Alliance, Network and VARA completely dominate the sector, and while there are some smaller players (e.g. Skippers) Qantas will have a very dominant market position (some might call it monopolistic) if they control both Alliance and Network.

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Not sure how I feel about this, little sad to see another small player merged into QF.

How many AOC will they have now?
Qantas
Eastern Australian
Sunstate
Network
National jet
That must add in some admin and duplication costs. I suppose the labour savings using regionals must be substantial.



Rex really should have partnered with Alliance - some E-90s would maybe have been a better way for them to start and grow.

The number of AOCs surely will be a factor in the ACCC deliberations. Maybe Network might have to go? Where are the competitive overlaps between Alliance and QF currently?

Rex might have tried but i wonder if their loud behaviour in the market place (ie rent seeking) might have not been attractive to Alliance which is a much more quiet and softly softly business from outside appearances.

There’s no competitive overlap between QQ and QF as such, but the ACCC is very concerned about competition in the FIFO sector. Alliance, Network and VARA completely dominate the sector, and while there are some smaller players (e.g. Skippers) Qantas will have a very dominant market position (some might call it monopolistic) if they control both Alliance and Network.

You are right about the FIFO situation. ACCC is also concerned that a regional behemoth that a combined QFLink and Alliance would make would mean there is an impossible barrier to entry for any other competitor in the regional sector. The regional sector will also attract the interest of politicians as access to air services at a non-extortionate price is a real hot button in regional electorates particularly in Queensland and NSW.

tullamarine wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

The number of AOCs surely will be a factor in the ACCC deliberations. Maybe Network might have to go? Where are the competitive overlaps between Alliance and QF currently?

Rex might have tried but i wonder if their loud behaviour in the market place (ie rent seeking) might have not been attractive to Alliance which is a much more quiet and softly softly business from outside appearances.

There’s no competitive overlap between QQ and QF as such, but the ACCC is very concerned about competition in the FIFO sector. Alliance, Network and VARA completely dominate the sector, and while there are some smaller players (e.g. Skippers) Qantas will have a very dominant market position (some might call it monopolistic) if they control both Alliance and Network.

You are right about the FIFO situation. ACCC is also concerned that a regional behemoth that a combined QFLink and Alliance would make would mean there is an impossible barrier to entry for any other competitor in the regional sector. The regional sector will also attract the interest of politicians as access to air services at a non-extortionate price is a real hot button in regional electorates particularly in Queensland and NSW.

While true, this largely applies at the top end of the regional market (e.g. F100/717). There are plenty of smaller regional players who have carved out their respective niches, such as Skytrans, Link Airways, Sharp Airlines, and (yes) Rex.

As Rex have been banging on about against for years, it’s hard to go up against QantasLink in the larger regional markets (think ABX, WGA, ROK etc) but there is still room for the smaller carriers outside of the large markets.

tullamarine wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

qf789 wrote:

I havent seen this before today but it seems that Qantas is also intending of upgrading PER-LHR to A350-1000 from 2026

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/up- ... -c-6668296

I find this really hard to believe. Yes, I do believe that Perth'll grow quite rapidly in the next couple of decades (I'm probably a bit biased, to be honest, but I really do think that if we play our cards right, we could become a very important city what with our abundance of lithium and Twiggy's green hydro project).

But I think it's going to be really hard for them to sell F seats. (disclaimer: this is probably just calculated optimism) Depending on how governments play their cards, in a decade or so, I see two main sources of demand for this route: corporate and VTL. Now, I think corporate demand'll exist, but it most likely won't be huge. VTL will continue growing and growing, yes. But economy on the 789 would probably be good enough.

I think what Perth really needs is more destinations, not more capacity from existing destinations. So flights like PER-FRA/CDG/NRT or HND/KUL, or even that crazy pipe dream of a PER-LAX flight would make more sense than PER-LHR on a 35K.

It all sounds a bit GT preaching to the local choir to me. For a start, they haven't ordered enough planes to do this if they are running MEL-LHR, SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK daily. There is also no real capacity increase in moving from the 789 to A35K, it is just about cabin mix given how heavily premium QF is configuring its initial A35Ks.

Yeah, it's clearly preaching. It doesn't seem like a very well fabricated lie either.

Unless QF is planning to utilise their 787s somewhere else, there's no reason to switch to an A35K. And even then, by 2026, the 787's issues will almost definitely have been resolved. Is there a recording or transcript of the presser out there? I was pretty busy on Monday and Tuesday, so I wouldn't know. But I find it very hard to believe that AJ said that. That entire quote was probably a lie.

Also, how would the logistics work? Unless QF is planning to set up an A35K station either here or in LHR, you're going to have a plane designed to fly from SYD to JFK, with a cabin more than 50% filled with premium seats, on an east-west flight. The only way this could even be remotely plausible is by adding a PER-West Coast US route, or having a station in LHR. So, that'd look like:
- east coast Australia-LHR-PER-LHR-east coast; or,
- PER-LHR-PER-LAX-PER loop.

Now, although I love the idea of the latter, it's hardly practical, seeing that PER-LAX demand mostly comes from tourism. I'd say upgauging to a 350 would make more sense only if they order the 359 or 35K and reconfig those new planes to a 3-class, J/P/Y layout. (that'd actually have a very interesting value proposition, though!)

So GT is clearly preaching to a local choir -- a local choir that doesn't understand the logistics of aviation.

Agree. I think it's GT dreaming.
Why would Qantas take a 35K off one of the other routes which would earn money to replace a 789 which is perfectly adequate.

He probably at one point asked "could the 35K fly that route" and obviously the answer was yes.

Now if in the future Qantas buys regular 350s (or even a further stretch) then quite possibly that aircraft might be used to upguage PER services.

PER-LAX on the other hand is an aircraft that might need the extra range of a ULR. (300nm longer than PER-LHR)

RyanairGuru wrote:

There’s no competitive overlap between QQ and QF as such, but the ACCC is very concerned about competition in the FIFO sector. Alliance, Network and VARA completely dominate the sector, and while there are some smaller players (e.g. Skippers) Qantas will have a very dominant market position (some might call it monopolistic) if they control both Alliance and Network.

Agreed, additionally, ACCC will also be concerned about market concentration in the aggregate, or at individual airports. Might the increased market concentration by QF give them too much unfair dominance over suppliers, or would its increased market share as a specific airport, say PER, give it unfair power to negotiate favorable terms? It may seek assurances or concessions in this regard. Additionally, objections may not be limited to other airlines, but suppliers or airports may object.

I wonder how much compensation QF has got from the 787 delays in total, and now this further delay - I’m sure a further discount on some 789 options wouldn’t hurt the case…. Perhaps when the next three are delivered? Surely some delivery slots will be opening up

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

I find this really hard to believe. Yes, I do believe that Perth'll grow quite rapidly in the next couple of decades (I'm probably a bit biased, to be honest, but I really do think that if we play our cards right, we could become a very important city what with our abundance of lithium and Twiggy's green hydro project).

But I think it's going to be really hard for them to sell F seats. (disclaimer: this is probably just calculated optimism) Depending on how governments play their cards, in a decade or so, I see two main sources of demand for this route: corporate and VTL. Now, I think corporate demand'll exist, but it most likely won't be huge. VTL will continue growing and growing, yes. But economy on the 789 would probably be good enough.

I think what Perth really needs is more destinations, not more capacity from existing destinations. So flights like PER-FRA/CDG/NRT or HND/KUL, or even that crazy pipe dream of a PER-LAX flight would make more sense than PER-LHR on a 35K.

It all sounds a bit GT preaching to the local choir to me. For a start, they haven't ordered enough planes to do this if they are running MEL-LHR, SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK daily. There is also no real capacity increase in moving from the 789 to A35K, it is just about cabin mix given how heavily premium QF is configuring its initial A35Ks.

Yeah, it's clearly preaching. It doesn't seem like a very well fabricated lie either.

Unless QF is planning to utilise their 787s somewhere else, there's no reason to switch to an A35K. And even then, by 2026, the 787's issues will almost definitely have been resolved. Is there a recording or transcript of the presser out there? I was pretty busy on Monday and Tuesday, so I wouldn't know. But I find it very hard to believe that AJ said that. That entire quote was probably a lie.

Also, how would the logistics work? Unless QF is planning to set up an A35K station either here or in LHR, you're going to have a plane designed to fly from SYD to JFK, with a cabin more than 50% filled with premium seats, on an east-west flight. The only way this could even be remotely plausible is by adding a PER-West Coast US route, or having a station in LHR. So, that'd look like:
- east coast Australia-LHR-PER-LHR-east coast; or,
- PER-LHR-PER-LAX-PER loop.

Now, although I love the idea of the latter, it's hardly practical, seeing that PER-LAX demand mostly comes from tourism. I'd say upgauging to a 350 would make more sense only if they order the 359 or 35K and reconfig those new planes to a 3-class, J/P/Y layout. (that'd actually have a very interesting value proposition, though!)

So GT is clearly preaching to a local choir -- a local choir that doesn't understand the logistics of aviation.

tullamarine wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

qf789 wrote:

I havent seen this before today but it seems that Qantas is also intending of upgrading PER-LHR to A350-1000 from 2026

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/up- ... -c-6668296

I find this really hard to believe. Yes, I do believe that Perth'll grow quite rapidly in the next couple of decades (I'm probably a bit biased, to be honest, but I really do think that if we play our cards right, we could become a very important city what with our abundance of lithium and Twiggy's green hydro project).

But I think it's going to be really hard for them to sell F seats. (disclaimer: this is probably just calculated optimism) Depending on how governments play their cards, in a decade or so, I see two main sources of demand for this route: corporate and VTL. Now, I think corporate demand'll exist, but it most likely won't be huge. VTL will continue growing and growing, yes. But economy on the 789 would probably be good enough.

I think what Perth really needs is more destinations, not more capacity from existing destinations. So flights like PER-FRA/CDG/NRT or HND/KUL, or even that crazy pipe dream of a PER-LAX flight would make more sense than PER-LHR on a 35K.

It all sounds a bit GT preaching to the local choir to me. For a start, they haven't ordered enough planes to do this if they are running MEL-LHR, SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK daily. There is also no real capacity increase in moving from the 789 to A35K, it is just about cabin mix given how heavily premium QF is configuring its initial A35Ks.

I am a little confused, QF ordered 12, I did see for SYD/MEL-LHR/JFK they would use 8 which would be a tightish rotation.

As for rotation they don’t need to run an East coast-PER service if the flight is timed in such a way that they run SYD-LHR-PER-LHR-MEL, so the inbound PER aircraft turns back to LHR.

What do you mean an A350 station? I take it you are from PER?

Anyway I’m not saying this will happen but it seems possible.

ZK-NBT wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

It all sounds a bit GT preaching to the local choir to me. For a start, they haven't ordered enough planes to do this if they are running MEL-LHR, SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK daily. There is also no real capacity increase in moving from the 789 to A35K, it is just about cabin mix given how heavily premium QF is configuring its initial A35Ks.

Yeah, it's clearly preaching. It doesn't seem like a very well fabricated lie either.

Unless QF is planning to utilise their 787s somewhere else, there's no reason to switch to an A35K. And even then, by 2026, the 787's issues will almost definitely have been resolved. Is there a recording or transcript of the presser out there? I was pretty busy on Monday and Tuesday, so I wouldn't know. But I find it very hard to believe that AJ said that. That entire quote was probably a lie.

Also, how would the logistics work? Unless QF is planning to set up an A35K station either here or in LHR, you're going to have a plane designed to fly from SYD to JFK, with a cabin more than 50% filled with premium seats, on an east-west flight. The only way this could even be remotely plausible is by adding a PER-West Coast US route, or having a station in LHR. So, that'd look like:
- east coast Australia-LHR-PER-LHR-east coast; or,
- PER-LHR-PER-LAX-PER loop.

Now, although I love the idea of the latter, it's hardly practical, seeing that PER-LAX demand mostly comes from tourism. I'd say upgauging to a 350 would make more sense only if they order the 359 or 35K and reconfig those new planes to a 3-class, J/P/Y layout. (that'd actually have a very interesting value proposition, though!)

So GT is clearly preaching to a local choir -- a local choir that doesn't understand the logistics of aviation.

tullamarine wrote:

AdvancedBikkie wrote:

I find this really hard to believe. Yes, I do believe that Perth'll grow quite rapidly in the next couple of decades (I'm probably a bit biased, to be honest, but I really do think that if we play our cards right, we could become a very important city what with our abundance of lithium and Twiggy's green hydro project).

But I think it's going to be really hard for them to sell F seats. (disclaimer: this is probably just calculated optimism) Depending on how governments play their cards, in a decade or so, I see two main sources of demand for this route: corporate and VTL. Now, I think corporate demand'll exist, but it most likely won't be huge. VTL will continue growing and growing, yes. But economy on the 789 would probably be good enough.

I think what Perth really needs is more destinations, not more capacity from existing destinations. So flights like PER-FRA/CDG/NRT or HND/KUL, or even that crazy pipe dream of a PER-LAX flight would make more sense than PER-LHR on a 35K.

It all sounds a bit GT preaching to the local choir to me. For a start, they haven't ordered enough planes to do this if they are running MEL-LHR, SYD-LHR and SYD-JFK daily. There is also no real capacity increase in moving from the 789 to A35K, it is just about cabin mix given how heavily premium QF is configuring its initial A35Ks.

I am a little confused, QF ordered 12, I did see for SYD/MEL-LHR/JFK they would use 8 which would be a tightish rotation.

As for rotation they don’t need to run an East coast-PER service if the flight is timed in such a way that they run SYD-LHR-PER-LHR-MEL, so the inbound PER aircraft turns back to LHR.

What do you mean an A350 station? I take it you are from PER?

Anyway I’m not saying this will happen but it seems possible.

Isn’t SYD-ORD on the cards too? I could see this over PER-LHR that could come later in the decade.

If the ACCC approves the purchase of QQ by QF, I am just wondering how they'll integrate it into the existing structure. It makes most sense for part of the assets to operate as the Qantas Link brand. But if they inherit another AOC, they may well operate this as another sub brand (and hence, company), which would enable them to maintain separate flight and cabin crew salaries.

So could we see something along the lines of Qantas Charter?

Cheers.

No different to Qantas and Jetconnect, or Cobham and NJS. A couple of companies can share the brand

smi0006 wrote:

Isn’t SYD-ORD on the cards too? I could see this over PER-LHR that could come later in the decade.

My personal view/analysis is that QF would like to open many more point-to-point routes such as BNE-ORD/SYD-ORD and even possibly PER-LAX. But they won't be doing it with just 12, 238 seat A350Ks. If this is their modus operandi, I would expect a follow up order at some point. Perhaps, they're privy to a bit more development news, which could possibly mean they're waiting for an A350neo which would allow them to do the same with 260-270 seats.

Cheers.

smi0006 wrote:

I wonder how much compensation QF has got from the 787 delays in total, and now this further delay - I’m sure a further discount on some 789 options wouldn’t hurt the case…. Perhaps when the next three are delivered? Surely some delivery slots will be opening up

Sorry, I can't find a recent quote, but I was in the belief that the remaining 789s were effectively paid for. I've lost count on how many purchase rights QF have/had remaining, but I believe those numbers are thinning. So I think the compensation is effectively done and dusted; happy to be corrected.

Considering at one stage we we're seeing an order of 65+ to be down to 11 delivered and 3 waiting (QF, not including JQ), something must have changed, perhaps.

Cheers.

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I wonder how much compensation QF has got from the 787 delays in total, and now this further delay - I’m sure a further discount on some 789 options wouldn’t hurt the case…. Perhaps when the next three are delivered? Surely some delivery slots will be opening up

Sorry, I can't find a recent quote, but I was in the belief that the remaining 789s were effectively paid for. I've lost count on how many purchase rights QF have/had remaining, but I believe those numbers are thinning. So I think the compensation is effectively done and dusted; happy to be corrected.

Considering at one stage we we're seeing an order of 65+ to be down to 11 delivered and 3 waiting (QF, not including JQ), something must have changed, perhaps.

Cheers.

There was never an order for 65; they were purchase rights. Some of these have already lapsed.

tullamarine wrote:

There was never an order for 65; they were purchase rights. Some of these have already lapsed.

It was 45 firm, 20 options and 50 purchase rights. They were pretty clear at the time they would be gunning to the full 65 and beyond.

Nuts in hindsight.

qf002 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

There was never an order for 65; they were purchase rights. Some of these have already lapsed.

It was 45 firm, 20 options and 50 purchase rights. They were pretty clear at the time they would be gunning to the full 65 and beyond.

Nuts in hindsight.

They had delusions of them at QF and all the Jetstar branded airlines at the time.

LTEN11 wrote:

qf002 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

There was never an order for 65; they were purchase rights. Some of these have already lapsed.

It was 45 firm, 20 options and 50 purchase rights. They were pretty clear at the time they would be gunning to the full 65 and beyond.

Nuts in hindsight.

They had delusions of them at QF and all the Jetstar branded airlines at the time.

Kind of describes the Dixon era.

Remember A380 firm orders were 20 + over 12 rights/ options.

Read that this week was the first time Joyce had place an order for new aircraft for any red tail aircraft.
(Had done orders for Jetstar, used aircraft, and cancelled a bunch of options and deferred/ cancelled the A380s)

Qantas NS22 new domestic routes, most are already known with the exception of this one

2 weekly PER-OOL from 25 June 22, increasing to 4 weekly for NS23

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220505-qfns22au

qf002 wrote:

tullamarine wrote:

There was never an order for 65; they were purchase rights. Some of these have already lapsed.

It was 45 firm, 20 options and 50 purchase rights. They were pretty clear at the time they would be gunning to the full 65 and beyond.

Nuts in hindsight.

I guess they originally had plans that the Asian operations would develop into something much more than they are. Unfortunately for QF, incumbents like SQ with Scoot used their strength to assume this market. It may have also been thought that eventually the 787s would take all the capacity then provided by the A330s. The advent of the A321XLR and a larger dedicated freighter fleet, not forecast back then, means maybe only half of the A330s will need to be replaced by widebodies.

As you point out, the original order of 45 now looks too much. Ironically, the numerous delays in the 787 development and production has meant QF have been able to get out of a lot of these orders with zero penalty.

How much cheaper is it to buy and operate a 321XLR vs one of the A330 / B787 ?

We know Alan said he could operate two 787 for less than one A380?

Does the same hold true for the A321XLR vs the A330 / B787?

If so it’s a no brainer to downsize where you can and run frequency if necessary.

redroo wrote:

How much cheaper is it to buy and operate a 321XLR vs one of the A330 / B787 ?

We know Alan said he could operate two 787 for less than one A380?

Does the same hold true for the A321XLR vs the A330 / B787?

If so it’s a no brainer to downsize where you can and run frequency if necessary.

The unknown in this comparison is capital costs. The original 787 order back in 2006 was allegedly dirt cheap (I’ve seen rumours of $50-60 mil per frame). While I assume the prices of purchase rights exercised today are higher than that, after Qantas cancelled their original form orders, it seems that Qantas is taking 787s at a stonking discount and at a loss for Boeing. Airbus aren’t particularly motivated to negotiate comparable discounts on XLRs when they have thousands of orders. While the XLRs are probably still cheaper than 787s, I expect that the gap between the two isn’t very much.

moa999 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

qf002 wrote:

It was 45 firm, 20 options and 50 purchase rights. They were pretty clear at the time they would be gunning to the full 65 and beyond.

Nuts in hindsight.

They had delusions of them at QF and all the Jetstar branded airlines at the time.

Kind of describes the Dixon era.

Remember A380 firm orders were 20 + over 12 rights/ options.

Read that this week was the first time Joyce had place an order for new aircraft for any red tail aircraft.
(Had done orders for Jetstar, used aircraft, and cancelled a bunch of options and deferred/ cancelled the A380s)

Dixon/Gregg/Borghetti era. The Era of Ego.

Like or hate Joyce he did bring the company back to corporate fundamentals.

redroo wrote:

How much cheaper is it to buy and operate a 321XLR vs one of the A330 / B787 ?

We know Alan said he could operate two 787 for less than one A380?

Does the same hold true for the A321XLR vs the A330 / B787?

If so it’s a no brainer to downsize where you can and run frequency if necessary.

Difficult to know without many parameters including capital and finance costs, and also the relative revenue trade-offs. Every aircraft has a trade-off. The A321XLR will have much lower trip costs, but you trade-off payload for that. The A330s/B787s get you more payload, but you trade that off against higher trip cost. Also, the relative trade-offs vary based on various missions characteristics, including range.

On a sector of about 3,000nm (MEL/SYD-DPS/CGK/SIN are all a little less/more than this), the A321XLR will burn around 15t whereas the B788 will burn about 29t. Obviously, a lot more will depend on the payload, but the B788 is just a much heavier structure (its OEW more than double the A321XLR). That said, the B788 at JQ seats 335 and assuming JQ's XLRs will seat the same as the LRs, it'll have 232. So two A321 XLRs will have a marginally higher trip cost (just fuel), but call it equal but carry 129 more passengers and this give you higher revenue for the same fuel. But you're paying more staff costs (4 pilots versus 2) for the XLRs, and different costs for cabin crew, overflight rights, airport costs, etc. Since many of these are non-linear, it's difficult to compare in a normative manner.

However, the XLRs will only have a very small cargo payload, maybe it'll carry 4t over the two flights, maybe 6t at a stretch if the cargo is dense. The B788? Shit ... it could easily carry more than 10t, 20t, maybe more on a 3,000nm sector. Weight would barely be a constraint. The constraint would be the volume. That said, this is the same for the XLR (volume constraint), but the B788 would have massively more volume available. The question is wether JQ/QF could exploit it? Depends on the destination, but yes, they certainly could to many.

The comparison AJ was making allowed him a direct comparison of the actual costs and revenue for specific routes, as well as the capital costs. What his comment a few years back didn't touch on was that the comparison may not have held on every route. While it may hold for MEL-PER/SIN-LHR, it may not hold for MEL-LAX or MEL-HKG or SYD-JNB.

qf789 wrote:

Qantas NS22 new domestic routes, most are already known with the exception of this one

2 weekly PER-OOL from 25 June 22, increasing to 4 weekly for NS23

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220505-qfns22au

Surprised at this, its a long flight which JQ already flies. Wouldnt have thought there would be enough [premium] demand between PER and OOL.

qf2220 wrote:

moa999 wrote:

LTEN11 wrote:

They had delusions of them at QF and all the Jetstar branded airlines at the time.

Kind of describes the Dixon era.

Remember A380 firm orders were 20 + over 12 rights/ options.

Read that this week was the first time Joyce had place an order for new aircraft for any red tail aircraft.
(Had done orders for Jetstar, used aircraft, and cancelled a bunch of options and deferred/ cancelled the A380s)

Dixon/Gregg/Borghetti era. The Era of Ego.

Like or hate Joyce he did bring the company back to corporate fundamentals.

Indeed - and by all accounts the man is an accounting mathematical genius. I do wonder if it’s time now for a more people focused leader, can’t imagine how employee engagement is traveling atm.

jrfspa320 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas NS22 new domestic routes, most are already known with the exception of this one

2 weekly PER-OOL from 25 June 22, increasing to 4 weekly for NS23

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220505-qfns22au

Surprised at this, its a long flight which JQ already flies. Wouldnt have thought there would be enough [premium] demand between PER and OOL.

Interesting- seems a great future route for a A220! Or Bonza at irregular intervals.

jrfspa320 wrote:

qf789 wrote:

Qantas NS22 new domestic routes, most are already known with the exception of this one

2 weekly PER-OOL from 25 June 22, increasing to 4 weekly for NS23

https://aeroroutes.com/eng/220505-qfns22au

Surprised at this, its a long flight which JQ already flies. Wouldnt have thought there would be enough [premium] demand between PER and OOL.

My immediate thought was that it must be a red-eye from PER-OOL, increasing fleet utilisation with a low opportunity cost, but then I looked at the schedule and saw a mid-morning departure. Quite surprised!

smi0006 wrote:

Indeed - and by all accounts the man is an accounting mathematical genius. I do wonder if it’s time now for a more people focused leader, can’t imagine how employee engagement is traveling atm.

And by a more people focussed leader, do you mean one that pleases the staff or customers? I'm not sure it's easy to do both at QF while being successful on the business side. I'm a big fan of AJ, but recognise that he could sometimes show a little more empathy. He's had to make some tough calls, but some of the recent public statements have shown too little empathy for passenger experiences.

evanb wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Indeed - and by all accounts the man is an accounting mathematical genius. I do wonder if it’s time now for a more people focused leader, can’t imagine how employee engagement is traveling atm.

And by a more people focussed leader, do you mean one that pleases the staff or customers? I'm not sure it's easy to do both at QF while being successful on the business side. I'm a big fan of AJ, but recognise that he could sometimes show a little more empathy. He's had to make some tough calls, but some of the recent public statements have shown too little empathy for passenger experiences.

I think the recent public statements are just overblown to be honest. The media loves a good beat up on Qantas. There is merit in what he said but it is a risk to say it as, as has been done, it can be spun very viciously.

qf2220 wrote:

evanb wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

Indeed - and by all accounts the man is an accounting mathematical genius. I do wonder if it’s time now for a more people focused leader, can’t imagine how employee engagement is traveling atm.

And by a more people focussed leader, do you mean one that pleases the staff or customers? I'm not sure it's easy to do both at QF while being successful on the business side. I'm a big fan of AJ, but recognise that he could sometimes show a little more empathy. He's had to make some tough calls, but some of the recent public statements have shown too little empathy for passenger experiences.

I think the recent public statements are just overblown to be honest. The media loves a good beat up on Qantas. There is merit in what he said but it is a risk to say it as, as has been done, it can be spun very viciously.

I was meaning employees - I agree his media quotes were less than ideal but taken out of context. He should have enough media training to have known better. I do think a bit more humility, and honesty - we want to be worlds best airline, and we are continue to strive for better customer experience would land better. I do rather like NZ-CEO Greg Foran in that regard.

For employees the stories I hear from QF - they just seem to kick many many own goals when they try to change things, and miss the sensitivity of messaging and timing internally. But I’m also an outsider so purely my perception based on anecdotal stories, and media.
.

smi0006 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

evanb wrote:

And by a more people focussed leader, do you mean one that pleases the staff or customers? I'm not sure it's easy to do both at QF while being successful on the business side. I'm a big fan of AJ, but recognise that he could sometimes show a little more empathy. He's had to make some tough calls, but some of the recent public statements have shown too little empathy for passenger experiences.

I think the recent public statements are just overblown to be honest. The media loves a good beat up on Qantas. There is merit in what he said but it is a risk to say it as, as has been done, it can be spun very viciously.

I was meaning employees - I agree his media quotes were less than ideal but taken out of context. He should have enough media training to have known better. I do think a bit more humility, and honesty - we want to be worlds best airline, and we are continue to strive for better customer experience would land better. I do rather like NZ-CEO Greg Foran in that regard.

For employees the stories I hear from QF - they just seem to kick many many own goals when they try to change things, and miss the sensitivity of messaging and timing internally. But I’m also an outsider so purely my perception based on anecdotal stories, and media.
.

Purely anecdotal as well, but from an outsider perspective it seemed that Qantas labour relations were at rock-bottom early in Joyce’s time as CEO, culminating in the 2011 lockout. Between 2012 and 2019 they steadily improved as the airline regained stability and was growing profitably, despite Qantas still being relatively hardline in areas such as the pilot negotiations for the 787 fleet. Since 2020 though it has all gone to s*** as Joyce doubled down on not wanting to waste a good crisis to cut labour costs across the board. Employees everywhere from the Mascot campus to cabin crew and pilots seem dissatisfied with the company’s leadership and direction.

smi0006 wrote:

qf2220 wrote:

evanb wrote:

And by a more people focussed leader, do you mean one that pleases the staff or customers? I'm not sure it's easy to do both at QF while being successful on the business side. I'm a big fan of AJ, but recognise that he could sometimes show a little more empathy. He's had to make some tough calls, but some of the recent public statements have shown too little empathy for passenger experiences.

I think the recent public statements are just overblown to be honest. The media loves a good beat up on Qantas. There is merit in what he said but it is a risk to say it as, as has been done, it can be spun very viciously.

I was meaning employees - I agree his media quotes were less than ideal but taken out of context. He should have enough media training to have known better. I do think a bit more humility, and honesty - we want to be worlds best airline, and we are continue to strive for better customer experience would land better. I do rather like NZ-CEO Greg Foran in that regard.

For employees the stories I hear from QF - they just seem to kick many many own goals when they try to change things, and miss the sensitivity of messaging and timing internally. But I’m also an outsider so purely my perception based on anecdotal stories, and media.
.

I was sort of an insider for a while and being the biggest airline, some employees (esp middle and upper management) do have an air of overconfidence, might i say arrogance, about them. This is directed upward (to management) and outward (to competitors and passengers) and so I can understand why AJ might have to be heavy.

I hasten to add, there are many many decent people just trying to do their best, so this isnt a comment about the whole organisation, just some. If it wasn't for the #1 position of QF, they wouldn't be as overconfident.