Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:37 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 46):
Koruman won't be happy with me for doing so, but I'm flying JQ to HNL this year. I could have paid an extra $1000 to fly QF, and I'm glad that there are people who choose to do so, but I couldn't make the cost-benefit analysis stack up in mainline's favor.

Not at all, I've done the same thing, that's how I'd acquired Qantas status before the lockout revolted me and drove me away.

My issue with Jetstar is that as you have illustrated the Qantas Group encourages Jetstar to cannibalise Qantas and even allows Qantas Frequent Flyer earning on the route. In contrast, Scoot is not allowed to cannibalise Singapore Airlines and is not allowed to use KrisFlyer as a marketing tool.

I would not object to Jetstar if:

1) Crewing practices adhered to the letter and spirit of Australian law on sectors within Australia or from Australia to a third country.
2) Jetstar was operated at arm's length from Qantas, buying its own fleet and fuel and paying its own airport charges rather than dumping them on its sibling.
3) Either Jetstar did not compete with Qantas, or if it did Qantas was allowed to flight back. Aggressively.
 
aryonoco
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:00 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 48):
At last QF have got what they have been asking for, no more Qantas Sales Act....

Oh QF actually in the short term doesn't care about QSA.

And while I'll applaud this government if it tries to repeal it, it's far from certain whether they can pass the legislation through. Remember that the government doesn't control the Senate and I am sure the ALP and Greens (not to mention protectionists like Senator Xenophon) won't be too willing to play ball.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:13 am

Relevant Fact of The Day

Rio Tinto's books reveal that they paid Leigh Clifford a US$15.34 million Defined Benefit Superannuation payout in 2007.

Remember Defined Benefit? The superannuation scheme which is based on final salary rather than actual contributions or even investment of accumulated funds?

If Qantas is to launch an assault on its employees' contractual entitlements it will be interesting to see whether Mr Clifford blushes.
 
bunumuring
Posts: 2531
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:56 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:25 am

Hi all,
The speculation is intense isn't it?
My first thoughts go out to the QF staff - I can't imagine how stressful this must all be for them. I wish them well and trust that the job losses will be less harsh than speculated.
Tonight I have heard rumors about parking the 767 fleet early, about JQ taking over Narita using the 5th 787, about a QFF selloff, about an EK 'white knight' deal, about the leasing out of LHR slots, about the Turkish A380 lease, about the 5th 787 actually being the first QF mainline Dreamliner ... And more!
I am concerned but want QF to survive, like others have posted here. If surgery is necessary, so be it. As long as it is focussed, fair and far-sighted. Not knee jerk reactions to short term issues.
And oh... Who thinks we will see EK flying transpacific sometime in the medium future... Allowing SIA to achieve it's aim and fly it as well ...???
Idle speculation.
Bunumuring.
I just wanna live while I'm alive!
 
User avatar
bjwonline
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:10 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:29 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 50):
My issue with Jetstar is that as you have illustrated the Qantas Group encourages Jetstar to cannibalise Qantas and even allows Qantas Frequent Flyer earning on the route. In contrast, Scoot is not allowed to cannibalise Singapore Airlines and is not allowed to use KrisFlyer as a marketing tool.

I think a big difference between the two comparisons you make is that JQ now fly many routes that were not profitable for QF with it's higher cost base. As a result many frequent fliers were not happy about being forced onto JQ and then not getting any benefit from QFF. This is why QF have little choice but to give points for travelling on JQ or loose the customer from the group altogether.

Also, Scoot is still very new and already does fly some routes next to SQ (SYD-SIN for example). Let's see in a few years how Scoot really does impact SQ.
 
User avatar
allrite
Topic Author
Posts: 2614
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:32 am

My phone apologises for the naughty word typo previously - I meant cheap as chips...  
Quoting JQflightie (Reply 43):
Is it a GreyHound Bus Codeshare? (TT)   

Ha ha no! There are only two airlines that fly direct to KUL, where I have to go for family reasons. One, in my experience, seems to have mostly preening and unhelpful staff. The other is even more uncomfortable but the cabin crew smile at you and fares are sometimes very cheap.  
Quoting koruman (Reply 50):
In contrast, Scoot is not allowed to cannibalise Singapore Airlines and is not allowed to use KrisFlyer as a marketing tool.

Scoot is still evolving and I would expect changes as it grows. Maybe they too will have some sort of KrisFlyer benefit. AFAIK QFF are less exclusive and more popular anyway. Certainly can be a tool of differentiation when selecting intra-Asian flights for Australians or choosing between Tiger and Jetstar (I'm not saying it's a rational decision). Scoot do fly on some of the same routes as SQ, direct to SYD, TPE, BKK and HKG. And surely Tiger is partly competing with SilkAir on routes. If this doesn't cannibalise Singapore Airline's passengers then that's more a reflection on relative wealth/prices.
I like artificial banana essence!
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1982
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:55 pm

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 12):

gemuser. Ive been looking around for a couple of hours and have this link to share. Its probably not all metal neutral as it turns out, only those routes defined as trunk routes are. The others are free codeshares with codeshare commission payable to the operating carrier. Ill keep searching though to see what I can find to share.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-e6frg95x-1226578916996#mm-premium

Quoting koruman (Reply 35):
1) sell Jetstar.

Seppuku would be less painful than that. The last thing that QF needs is another domestic competitor.

Quoting WSTAKL (Reply 28):
Quoting JQflightie (Reply 41):
I see where you are coming from, and yes some unions are a bit vigilante and that is wrong, however i am, part of and also a union delegate and we like to make sure that it is fair for both parties. A union's job, if done correctly, should be there to protect both the employee and employer so that neither parties stray into legality issues, and thats what i make sure of, always fair and even!

IMHO, Unions at QF and right across Australia have largely failed to help 'warm up' the employee groups across the nation that the world is changing and we need to change with it instead of try and preserve a 1950s Australia (that to be honest again probably didnt exist as imagined anyway). The education level of most of the people that have and will be affected by cuts (again, not just at QF but across the Australian workplace landscape) is not the sort that has developed abilities to be self sufficient. The employees are technically trained in their current jobs but probably dont have the flexibility to do other things. Developing the ability of individual flexibility in an otherwise unknowing employee has been a failure of the Australian workplace system in general.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 44):
Swap a 737 for a 767 and 80 seats disappear, and in doing so you drive up prices.

This takes out more J seats than Y though (7% on a 738 and 10% on a 767). Id think QF would want to keep all the J they can and drop the Y, not the other way around. They have JQ for Y capacity.
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:21 pm

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 56):
uoting RyanairGuru (Reply 44):
Swap a 737 for a 767 and 80 seats disappear, and in doing so you drive up prices.

This takes out more J seats than Y though (7% on a 738 and 10% on a 767). Id think QF would want to keep all the J they can and drop the Y, not the other way around. They have JQ for Y capacity.


It all depends on how J is performing. It is well known that VA's entry into the market has substantially driven down J yields for QF. Reducing J by swapping to 737s makes sense if J is currently only filling up on a lot of services with award redemptions and CL upgrades.

QF needs to find a way to drive up domestic yields and taking capacity out of the market is the best way....though it probably won't be stated as such, this is effectively giving up on the "line in the sand" and had they done it a year ago would probably be in a much better situation today.
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5090
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:25 pm

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 56):
gemuser. Ive been looking around for a couple of hours and have this link to share. Its probably not all metal neutral as it turns out, only those routes defined as trunk routes are.

Thank you for your efforts. Unfortunately that article is behind a pay wall so I cant see it! BUT "Google is your friend" and it can be seen via a Google search.
Not much information, but it does seem to me that QF/EK routes from Australia thru DXB are "trunk routes" and so metal neutral, but connections from DXB are plain code shares. That adds to our knowledge but of course adds many more questions. I'll leave further speculation until after Thursday.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:39 pm

Quoting koruman (Reply 35):
Incidentally, I have a novel suggestion for what Qantas could do......

1) sell Jetstar.
2) fix Qantas
Quoting QF2220 (Reply 56):
Seppuku would be less painful than that. The last thing that QF needs is another domestic competitor.

Jetstar already is a domestic competitor to Qantas on all the major trunk routes.

But it is a particularly lethal domestic competitor because Qantas buys its planes, pays for its fuel, pays all airport charges and even allows it to sell Qantas Frequent Flyer points and status. Yet all the while Qantas is not allowed to fight back.

Qantas could probably have finished off Jetstar years ago if it was allowed to fight back when Jetstar punches it in the nose. The irony is that the 65% equation is all wrong. It shouldn't be QF + JQ > VA + TT, because Jetstar is a competitor of Qantas, not a partner.

Rather there should be two separate battles for profit (as opposed to market share) viewed separately, namely:

1. QF v VA
2. JQ v TT

If Qantas was allowed to compete with the in-house competitor which leaches off its own blood it could have much better used volume to smash Jetstar.
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1982
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:27 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 58):
Not much information, but it does seem to me that QF/EK routes from Australia thru DXB are "trunk routes" and so metal neutral, but connections from DXB are plain code shares. That adds to our knowledge but of course adds many more questions. I'll leave further speculation until after Thursday.

Absolutely no problem.

Im not sure that Thursday will add much on this front TBH (except some sort of update as to the performance). On the trunk routes I found from the NZ Transport Ministry (link below to the relevant attachments as PDFs). Im sure that the ACCC has similar documents though not immedately findable...

QANTAS TRUNK ROUTES
1. Australia to any destination (via Dubai), including Sydney-Dubai-London Heathrow and Melbourne-Dubai-London Heathrow
2. Australia to Dubai (including via any intermediary point

EMIRATES TRUNK ROUTES
1. Dubai to any point in Australia (including via any intermediary point)
2. Dubai to any destination via Australia, including Dubai-Sydney-Auckland, Dubai-Brisbane-Auckland, Dubai-Melbourne-Auckland and Dubai-Bangkok-Sydney-Christchurch

http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork...ntasemiratescoordinationagreement/

To me, its not clear though whether an QF ticket on an EK service after DXB is actually a trunk route or not for QF. If it is, then most are trunk routes and subject to benefit sharing. But I cannot reconcile that back to the comment in the Australian article about DXB-AMS. Is that just for DXB-AMS single sector sales?

(And apologies for the paywall, I found it through Google too so didnt notice!)

Quoting koruman (Reply 59):
Jetstar already is a domestic competitor to Qantas on all the major trunk routes.

Koruman, I will leave others to point out to you how almost everything you say is almost the complete opposite of what the reality is. In no way does JQ meaningfully compete with QF. It outright replaces QF and QF GROUP decides it is JQ that is better for the route over QF. 2 brand strategy. Enough said.

[Edited 2014-02-25 17:47:19]
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:43 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 59):
Yet all the while Qantas is not allowed to fight back.

Not being able to fight back? What the???

Quoting koruman (Reply 59):
If Qantas was allowed to compete with the in-house competitor which leaches off its own blood it could have much better used volume to smash Jetstar.

What the X2???? Its part of a dual brand strategy by the same owner. You are so dramatic and really showing a lack of understanding of the industry of late, sorry to say  
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:53 am

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 60):
In no way does JQ meaningfully compete with QF. It outright replaces QF and QF GROUP decides it is JQ that is better for the route over QF. 2 brand strategy. Enough said.

This is only partly true. In many cases QF transferred its services from mainline to JQ. These were historically leisure routes (ie MEL-OOL) or new routes (AVV-SYD).

Over time JQ has started competing with QF on mainline routes such as MEL-PER, MEL-SYD. When created Geoff Dixon explicitly said it would never happen but times have changed. This competition would not be so much of an issue if the times JQ flew a sector did not compete with mainline but much of this is now wingtip flying. JQ could argue that they are really only competing with TT on these services but the capacity that JQ and TT have brought into the market has undoubtedly pushed down on QF (and VA).
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:14 am

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 60):
In no way does JQ meaningfully compete with QF. It outright replaces QF and QF GROUP decides it is JQ that is better for the route over QF.

2 brand strategy.

Enough said.

Really?????

Jetstar competes aggressively against Qantas even on the Golden Triangle, with no hint of it "outright replacing" Qantas in a "2 brand strategy".

From Melbourne to Sydney there are 10 daily Jetstar flights, including peak corporate departure slots such as 0630, 0825, 1630, 1730, 1740 and 1840. From Brisbane to Sydney there are 5 daily Jetstar flights.

The same pattern is true on all the other major capital city routes. The Qantas Group deliberately allows Jetstar to compete against and cannibalise Qantas but has never shown any sign of allowing Qantas to fight back.

Similarly, why does Jetstar fly the highly lucrative Honolulu route more frequently with an A330 than Qantas is allowed to with a clapped-out 767-300?

Qantas actually bought those A330s, but not only have they been gifted to its competitor, Qantas actually pays for the competitor's airport charges, and fuel, and catering and even awards Qantas Frequent Flyer miles and status to the competitor in such a manner that any passenger can acquire the same economy or business miles and status on the competitor much more cheaply than on the parent.

And Qantas has to fly an antique gas-guzzler against the more efficient competitor whose fleet it actually bought but isn't allowed to operate.

Forget a "level playing field" against Virgin Australia. Qantas needs one against Jetstar!
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:23 am

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 62):
Over time JQ has started competing with QF on mainline routes such as MEL-PER, MEL-SYD. When created Geoff Dixon explicitly said it would never happen but times have changed. This competition would not be so much of an issue if the times JQ flew a sector did not compete with mainline but much of this is now wingtip flying. JQ could argue that they are really only competing with TT on these services but the capacity that JQ and TT have brought into the market has undoubtedly pushed down on QF (and VA).

I see this as the inability for the management to actually manage capacity, not a JQ issue specifically.

It all plays into the 65% domestic market share methodology, which it is not going to distance itself from. From the general consensus, it needs to cut capacity to increase yields, but it currently seems to see things differently.

An interesting evolution of the industry occurred when JQ was flying most of its Vic originating routes from AVV, thus ensuring it had a clear and defined role. The issues came once TT entered the market, basing themselves at MEL and forcing JQ into a competitive response. Such responses have occurred throughout the network over time.

Over time, as QF needed to increase its capacity to stick to its 65% line in the sand mark, it has often used JQ as that vehicle. This has been to ensure that capacity remains in the market, but less reliance on premium pax would be required to fill those seats.

If it was not so hell bent on this target, and managed to try and maximise yields, it would likely be in a healthier spot now. The dual brand strategy is not the issue though.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8466
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:39 am

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 62):
Over time JQ has started competing with QF on mainline routes such as MEL-PER, MEL-SYD

But that's the point, the people who are flying JQ are - in almost all cases - not the same ones who would fly QF.

Rather than taking those passengers of QF they are taking them off [formerly] DJ and now TT. I am yet to see any evidence that a "QF passenger" has chosen to fly JQ. The only ones who are those who would only book a "Sale" or heavily discounted "Red-e Deal" if QF were the cheapest option. That isn't the market that QF goes after, not least because their costs are conducive to serving it.

The only example that springs to mind of a premium passenger jumping from QF to JQ is actually my own father a couple of weeks ago, because the last QF flight NTL-BNE leaves too early to do a full days work in Newcastle (which, admittedly, isn't a major business market from Brisbane anyway).
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5090
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:44 am

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 60):
QANTAS TRUNK ROUTES
1. Australia to any destination (via Dubai), including Sydney-Dubai-London Heathrow and Melbourne-Dubai-London Heathrow
2. Australia to Dubai (including via any intermediary point

EMIRATES TRUNK ROUTES
1. Dubai to any point in Australia (including via any intermediary point)
2. Dubai to any destination via Australia, including Dubai-Sydney-Auckland, Dubai-Brisbane-Auckland, Dubai-Melbourne-Auckland and Dubai-Bangkok-Sydney-Christchurch
http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork...ment/

WOW! That is a find!
The way I read it is that any QF & EK service Australia to DXB is a "trunk route" including if it is via an intermediate point. Also any QF flight beyond DXB ON QF metal is a "trunk route" and any EK flight beyond Australia ON EK metal is also a "trunk route". Thus ALL these flights are "metal neutral".
All other flight are not "trunk routes" but are "simple" code shares and NOT "metal neutral"

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 60):
To me, its not clear though whether an QF ticket on an EK service after DXB is actually a trunk route or not for QF. If it is, then most are trunk routes and subject to benefit sharing. But I cannot reconcile that back to the comment in the Australian article about DXB-AMS.

I think its reasonably clear. A ticket from SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR is totally "metal neutral" no matter who operates the aircraft. A ticket SYD/MEL-DXB-AMS is "metal neutral" to DXB, after that its a code share on EK metal and if a QF ticket they get a commission for the DXB-AMS part.
The big outstanding question, to me, is can QF, under this agreement add any service it wishes DXB-Europe without EK approval? Because that would make such a service "metal neutral". So in the previous example our SYD/MEL-DXB-AMS service would become totally "metal neutral" IF QF operated a DXB-AMS service. Substitute any other European city for "AMS"!
Now that would be very neat!!!

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
User avatar
allrite
Topic Author
Posts: 2614
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:49 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 65):
Rather than taking those passengers of QF they are taking them off [formerly] DJ and now TT. I am yet to see any evidence that a "QF passenger" has chosen to fly JQ.

To further illustrate: I have a friend who works at a company that insists that employees select the cheapest fare to their destination. On SYD-MEL that might mean TT or VA, except that QF has a lower cost vehicle in the form of Jetstar, so they may end up keeping the sale in the group.

Actually, the company later brought in the Serko software to manage flight bookings, which actually makes it easier to circumvent the cheapest rule (speaking from experience here), so now they book with Qantas wherever possible (and taking delays/flight times into account not using a LCC makes sense in many business circumstances).  
I like artificial banana essence!
 
tullamarine
Posts: 2589
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:14 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:57 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 66):
I think its reasonably clear. A ticket from SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR is totally "metal neutral" no matter who operates the aircraft.

I'm still a little confused if ADL-DXB or PER-DXB is metal neutral given it is now exclusively an EK route. Maybe this is the type of question we could get a journalist to ask of QF management one day.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 66):
The big outstanding question, to me, is can QF, under this agreement add any service it wishes DXB-Europe without EK approval?

Something tells me that EK may have been the smartest people in the room so I'd be surprised if QF can change the brand of handtowels on European services without EK's permission let alone add competitive routes!!
717, 721/2, 732/3/4/5/7/8/9, 742/3/4, 752/3, 762/3, 772/E/W, 788/9, 300,310, 319,320/1, 332/3, 359, 388, DC9, DC10, F28, F100, 142,143, E75/90, CR2, D82/3/4, SF3, ATR
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:00 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 65):
The only example that springs to mind of a premium passenger jumping from QF to JQ is actually my own father a couple of weeks ago, because the last QF flight NTL-BNE leaves too early to do a full days work in Newcastle

My neighbour did it last week. The cheapest peak hour SYD-OOL fare on Qantas or Virgin was over $250 one-way, so her employer booked her on Jetstar. It happens all the time, and I don't see how that helps the Qantas Group, let alone Qantas.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 66):
A ticket from SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR is totally "metal neutral" no matter who operates the aircraft. A ticket SYD/MEL-DXB-AMS is "metal neutral" to DXB, after that its a code share on EK metal and if a QF ticket they get a commission for the DXB-AMS part.

If that logic is correct - and it might well be - then every passenger from Brisbane or Perth to anywhere in Europe on a Qantas ticket would not be "metal neutral" but rather would be viewed simply as a commisionable codeshare. In effect, Qantas has become simply a travel agent for a competitor for all passengers from Brisbane and Perth to Europe.
 
User avatar
qfvhoqa
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:10 am

Quoting tullamarine (Reply 68):
I'm still a little confused if ADL-DXB or PER-DXB is metal neutral given it is now exclusively an EK route. Maybe this is the type of question we could get a journalist to ask of QF management one day.
Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
If that logic is correct - and it might well be - then every passenger from Brisbane or Perth to anywhere in Europe on a Qantas ticket would not be "metal neutral" but rather would be viewed simply as a commisionable codeshare. In effect, Qantas has become simply a travel agent for a competitor for all passengers from Brisbane and Perth to Europe.

According to QF2220's find all routes from Australia to Dubai are metal neutral, regardless of whether the sector is flown by EK or QF (this is essentially what metal neutral means). My understanding would be that EK/QF share both revenues and costs on all metal neutral sectors.

Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
My neighbour did it last week. The cheapest peak hour SYD-OOL fare on Qantas or Virgin was over $250 one-way, so her employer booked her on Jetstar. It happens all the time, and I don't see how that helps the Qantas Group, let alone Qantas.

It helps the Qantas Group, because QF's fares would still have been higher than TT. Without JQ, TT gets the pax and QF loses the revenue.
 
packersfan
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:13 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
My neighbour did it last week. The cheapest peak hour SYD-OOL fare on Qantas or Virgin was over $250 one-way, so her employer booked her on Jetstar. It happens all the time, and I don't see how that helps the Qantas Group, let alone Qantas.

I would have thought it is very clear how it helps Qantas, in that it all ends up in Qantas' pocket somewhere down the line.
Actually with that type of fare you wonder how Qantas and Virgin aren't making a motza. It is possible Korumans' neighbour paid $220 for a one way Jetstar fare SYD-OOL and THAT would have been a wonderful result for Qantas.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8466
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:14 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
then every passenger from Brisbane or Perth to anywhere in Europe on a Qantas ticket would not be "metal neutral" but rather would be viewed simply as a commisionable codeshare.

Did you not read what QF2220 posted?!? ALL flights from Australia to Dubai are metal neutral, so QF gets a revenue share on the BNE/PER/ADL-DXB sector.


Incidentally, congratulations QF2220! You have managed to post something that the rest of us have scratched our heads over for the best part of 12 months.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8466
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:16 am

Quoting qfvhoqa (Reply 70):
It helps the Qantas Group, because QF's fares would still have been higher than TT. Without JQ, TT gets the pax and QF loses the revenue.

  

The move towards "lowest cost" travel is a definite phenomenon, especially post-GFC, and is no longer limited to just mom-and-pops and SMEs. However, I reiterate that QF can rarely hope to [profitably] be the lowest cost option in any given market, so if it isn't JQ then that business is going to VAH (via VA or TT)
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
JQflightie
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:17 am

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 56):
IMHO, Unions at QF and right across Australia have largely failed to help 'warm up' the employee groups across the nation that the world is changing and we need to change with it instead of try and preserve a 1950s Australia (that to be honest again probably didnt exist as imagined anyway). The education level of most of the people that have and will be affected by cuts (again, not just at QF but across the Australian workplace landscape) is not the sort that has developed abilities to be self sufficient. The employees are technically trained in their current jobs but probably dont have the flexibility to do other things. Developing the ability of individual flexibility in an otherwise unknowing employee has been a failure of the Australian workplace system in general.

Yes, but as an employee, and i dont know if you are, but my union works effectively with QF, i see alot of good things that the Union and QF have worked on together  

Also, i think what we need to do when we talk about the whole QF gave routes to JQ bla bla bla, is that we can trace this back to as far back as VQ (Impulse).
To me, its doing a full rotation again, 717's operating on trunk route again, just as they were when VQ was turned into QLink.
In relation to JQ 'competing' with QF on trunk routes, i more like to say complementing, we are in a day and age that business and personal travellers are budget minded, and i personally would prefer to see their money used on JQ, which all in all contributes to QFs bottom line, yes i would love them to fly QF but its not going to happen unless reformation takes place to drive the cost base down therefore benefiting the business/pax.
As for QF paying for JQ and their maintenance, i think this is not the correct statement. Alot of JQ maintenance was already in-place and established with aquisitions such as the VQ take-over, eg; NTL Based JQ ops was an original base for VQ and had hanger space where C&D checks were done on the 717 fleet, and then was also converted so that the A320/321 aircraft could be maintained there, not to mention that it is still set up for 717 over flow maintenace if needed, alot of the equipment that JQ use, engineering wise, base admin wise, computers ect still all have VQ 'Property of Impulse Airlines' tags on them.
So what money had to be injected into JQ was little.
Yes the A332 aircraft aircraft are fully maintained by QF, as they are leased by QF and then sub-leased to JQ, there for JQ dont get these aircraft for free.
Also when it comes to catering, QCatering do not cater any JQ flight, its all done by Alpha.
Again, i will say, as many beleive there is no place for JQ and that it is draining QF of funds, its simply not, next time you board a JQ flight at the L1 door, look up in the door frame and check to see who owns the planes or who they are leased from.

Thats my informed 2 cents worth, after working for JQ.... but hey, what would i know right, i just worked for them...   
When is my next holiday?
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:22 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
My neighbour did it last week. The cheapest peak hour SYD-OOL fare on Qantas or Virgin was over $250 one-way, so her employer booked her on Jetstar. It happens all the time, and I don't see how that helps the Qantas Group, let alone Qantas.

How it helps QF? Simple, it still generates revenue, which combined with the lower JQ cost base can therefore still be a win for the group.

If there was no JQ, it would have possibly lost that passenger to the competition, or lost money trying to chase pax with having to add frequency with the higher cost base QF mainline flights.

Quoting koruman (Reply 69):
If that logic is correct - and it might well be - then every passenger from Brisbane or Perth to anywhere in Europe on a Qantas ticket would not be "metal neutral" but rather would be viewed simply as a commisionable codeshare. In effect, Qantas has become simply a travel agent for a competitor for all passengers from Brisbane and Perth to Europe.

If it can't operate the routes profitably on its own, its better to get some revenue than nothing at all.
 
aerohottie
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:30 am

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 60):
QANTAS TRUNK ROUTES
1. Australia to any destination (via Dubai), including Sydney-Dubai-London Heathrow and Melbourne-Dubai-London Heathrow
2. Australia to Dubai (including via any intermediary point

EMIRATES TRUNK ROUTES
1. Dubai to any point in Australia (including via any intermediary point)
2. Dubai to any destination via Australia, including Dubai-Sydney-Auckland, Dubai-Brisbane-Auckland, Dubai-Melbourne-Auckland and Dubai-Bangkok-Sydney-Christchurch

Taking this to the extreme, EK could operate a service DXB-Australia-LAX/SFO etc and it would be metal neutral. Assuming EK's costs are lower than QF, which seems obvious, then this would actually make sense... interesting.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 72):
Did you not read what QF2220 posted?!? ALL flights from Australia to Dubai are metal neutral, so QF gets a revenue share on the BNE/PER/ADL-DXB sector.

Profit share, not revenue share, as the costs are shared also
What?
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8466
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:36 am

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 76):
Profit share, not revenue share, as the costs are shared also

Good point, I was being lazy with my use of language as that's what I meant.

If I'm understanding these agreements correctly then what they do is pool the costs and revenue of operating these routes and then cut the "profit" component (pooled revenue-pooled costs) by the proportion of seats that each airline shifted.

So if QF operated 10% of seats and EK operated 90% of the seats, and they had a combined revenue of $100mn and combined costs of $50mn, then QF get $5mn and EK $45mn.

[Edited 2014-02-25 20:49:10]

[Edited 2014-02-25 20:49:24]
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
aryonoco
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:24 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 66):
The way I read it is that any QF & EK service Australia to DXB is a "trunk route" including if it is via an intermediate point. Also any QF flight beyond DXB ON QF metal is a "trunk route" and any EK flight beyond Australia ON EK metal is also a "trunk route". Thus ALL these flights are "metal neutral".
All other flight are not "trunk routes" but are "simple" code shares and NOT "metal neutral"

Wow! That is great. It seems very fair by the looks of it. And it's much better for QF than I thought would be the case.

So from a profit point of view, QF does fly from BNE and PER and ADL to DXB. That's just great to hear.

Congratulations to QF2220. That's a gem of a find! 
 
aryonoco
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:37 am

Quoting aerohottie (Reply 76):
Taking this to the extreme, EK could operate a service DXB-Australia-LAX/SFO etc and it would be metal neutral. Assuming EK's costs are lower than QF, which seems obvious, then this would actually make sense... interesting.

I've been thinking of this as well. Assuming this is indeed the case, and if EK was somehow able to get the rights to operate from Australia to US (which bearing in mind SQ wasn't able to get), it might actually end up being a good thing for QF, and would put tremendous competitive pressure on UA and DL/VA.

Of course how would that affect QF's JV with AA? That agreement might prohibit QF from entering into such an arrangement on Australia-US.
 
koruman
Posts: 2179
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:08 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:21 am

I owe Steve Purvinas an apology for belittling him earlier.

Today's email to his members shows considerably more insight, intelligence and maturity than Qantas' Board and executive team has shown.

These are some of the key passages that have been posted online:

Qantas Sale Act Changes

We totally oppose any change to the Act that will allow foreign ownership. Foreign ownership to the point of complete control of Ansett saw it asset stripped and destroyed. The same would happen at Qantas and many of the people at Ansett at the time are now pulling strings within your company. Qantas are currently 38% foreign owned with the cap set at 49%. There is plenty of scope to raise funds offshore now but no buyers are interested because they wouldn’t have the control that would allow them to embark on an asset stripping exercise.

The Qantas Sale Act has been in place since the airline was privatised. Only the current Board and CEO have failed to deliver a profit with the Sale Act in place. When investors brought the airline from Australia they did so knowing there was a Sale Act that placed obligations on the owners. If the owners/investors wanted an airline that was not restricted by the Sale Act they should have brought Virgin shares. Speculative investment in Qantas should not be rewarded for those investors banking on a Government that would be tricked into changes to the Act.

A Government Debt Guarantee

We totally oppose this option also. This would enable Qantas to secure cheaper loans and borrow more money. The current Board have shown they do not understand Aviation enough to know where to invest to make their business viable. Whilst Aviation people would immediately think of upgrading older aircraft to 777 variants that would allow Qantas to fly direct to many overseas destinations, it would be more likely that the current Board would use the money to embark on more ventures into Asia with new Jetstar franchises to add to their failing Jetstar portfolios.

Money not spent in this manner would allow them to offer even lower unsustainable Domestic airfares to continue trying to crush the competition from Virgin in what could only be viewed as an unhealthy airfare war between two men in a battle for the biggest ego. Either way the new loans they would most likely take out would not deliver a profitable sustainable airline, just further debt that would be almost impossible to pay off.

Qantas CEO Future

We have and will be calling for Alan Joyce to move on. It’s not that we have any personal issue with him per se, he is however the face of a Board that have put thousands of Australians out of work and placed Qantas in the dire position they now find themselves. The strategy they have adopted is now risking the employment of 30,000 Australians and someone needs to get out there and state the obvious. If Mr Joyce was to come out and admit that in hindsight the strategy was not working and he was now going to concentrate on the core business he would have our full support but we consider that turn of events highly unlikely.

Removing the CEO is not the complete answer though as most of us would be aware, it is Leigh Clifford, ....

It’s too complicated to double up and also call for his resignation though because the average Australian has never even heard of him.

Jetstar

We fully support the continued operation and ownership of Jetstar in Australia. They have provided a viable option for people shopping for budget travel and have expanded the pool of people willing travel on aircraft within the Qantas Group. We have seen countless examples of Qantas cross subsidising Jetstar Australia operations and don’t really have a problem with that because all the money stays in the Group. We would like the Board to be more open about this though rather than claim that Qantas International are completely unviable when that is not the case.

The Asian Jetstar franchises are killing the whole Group. We estimate that $1B has been wasted chasing double digit growth in growing Asian markets on the assumption that Asian nations and their business leaders will not protect their turf. The return on investment for these ventures has been zero with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Uncompetitive Union Labour and Unco-operative Unions

Qantas will be trying to create the impression that high wages and uncompetitive work practices are to blame and that unions will not co-operate with change. They know this will draw easy support from suckers in the Coalition Government. The ALAEA have demonstrated over a long period of time that we are willing to work with them to make Qantas better. 737 c-check were reduced from 41 days to 19 days because of our work giving them the fastest heavy maintenance turn times in the world. The ALAEA also offered 25% less take home wages at Avalon this year to keep the base open knowing that the difference in price between Avalon and Hong Kong was less than 3%. The Avalon offer was the most generous union offer made in any industry in this country to keep work within Australia but for reasons unknown, it was rejected.

[Edited 2014-02-25 23:48:44]
 
aryonoco
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:00 am

Quoting koruman (Reply 80):
We totally oppose any change to the Act that will allow foreign ownership

Good to see dinosaurs with '50s mentality still kicking and screaming alive!
 
VH-BZF
Posts: 795
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:28 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:39 am

I would love to see where Qantas would be with the arm chair experts running it? Whilst Purvinis makes some interesting points in regards to JQ as part of the QF group, most of his other comments show a clear lack of understanding and that he is completely out of touch.

BZF
Ansett Australia - (was) One of the worlds great airlines!
 
User avatar
qfvhoqa
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:50 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:11 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 77):
So if QF operated 10% of seats and EK operated 90% of the seats, and they had a combined revenue of $100mn and combined costs of $50mn, then QF get $5mn and EK $45mn.

Are you sure how "metal neutral" agreements work? AFAIK, metal neutrality means that the actual operator of the metal has no bearing on the profit share. See DL/NW switching sectors between each other to right-size markets. Why would DL give up a sector to NW if it meant that they would end up with a smaller profit share?
I would agree with the ratio you've given if the agreement was profit sharing but not metal neutral.
 
TN486
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:08 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:01 am

Tomorrow is nearly upon us (tomorrow being Feb 27) - who can sleep with all this conjecture................
remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
 
User avatar
allrite
Topic Author
Posts: 2614
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:23 am

Quoting TN486 (Reply 84):
Tomorrow is nearly upon us (tomorrow being Feb 27) - who can sleep with all this conjecture................

Somebody should calculate the economic effects of the Qantas announcement on worker productivity... And then compare it to Justin Bieber or the death of a celebrity.  
I like artificial banana essence!
 
TN486
Posts: 556
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:08 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:29 am

Quoting allrite (Reply 85):
Somebody should calculate the economic effects of the Qantas announcement on worker productivity... And then compare it to Justin Bieber or the death of a celebrity

"Any boss who sacks any worker for not turning up for work tomorrow is a bum" to quote a former Prime Minister (hope I got the quote right). LOL.
remember the t shirt "I own an airline"on the front - "qantas" on the back
 
CBRboy
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:03 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:47 am

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 81):
Quoting koruman (Reply 80):
We totally oppose any change to the Act that will allow foreign ownership

Good to see dinosaurs with '50s mentality still kicking and screaming alive!

I think the question of foreign ownership actually deserves a serious argument. I, too, am opposed to majority foreign ownership of Qantas. The present problems at Qantas stem from two factors: the rise of Virgin Aust as a serious competitor for high-yield traffic, and Qantas' management insistence on maintaining a line-in-the-sand market share of 65%. Both these factors have eroded Qantas' domestic yield. Qantas doesn't need foreign investors. It needs a plan to restore profitability so that investors of any type will be interested, and to restore its credit rating. In Qantas' present circumstances, the only foreign investors who would arrive after repeal of the Qantas Sale Act would be foreign airline investors who would only be interested if they could take control. And let's be clear, they would not pour endless money into a market-share fight with VA. Qantas would serve only the purpose of the foreign owner airline(s). Not Australia's interest, or staff interests, or minority investor interests. Qantas can be 'fixed' without being sold to foreign airlines. Let's hope we see the start of this tomorrow.
 
User avatar
allrite
Topic Author
Posts: 2614
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:11 pm

Quoting allrite (Reply 85):
Somebody should calculate the economic effects of the Qantas announcement on worker productivity...

Here's a stab at part of it:

There are 700 Australian members on A.net so far as I can see.

Not all of them are active or care about Qantas or discussing it, but there are other av fans out there as well in the larger community.

According to the ABS the average weekly wage is about $1115. Yes, we've got students and stockbrokers here so hopefully it balances out.

Let's say that a day's work has been wasted, partly by the announcement, partly by discussions before and after the event and that people work 5 days a week.

So we get 700 x $1115 / 5 = $156,100, or a third of a Prime Minister for a year or 15.5 first class seat tickets from Sydney to London on QF1 tomorrow.  

[Edited 2014-02-26 04:14:37]
I like artificial banana essence!
 
SA7700
Posts: 2930
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:38 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:28 pm

In order to cater for QF's official half-year results and announcements to be released on February 27, 2014, a master thread has been created in order to discuss such official news. The thread can be accessed here:

Qantas Half Year Announcements: Feb 27, 2014 (by SA7700 Feb 26 2014 in Civil Aviation)

* Government assistance for Qantas and possible repeal of the QSA (Qantas Sales Act)
* Future of QF flights to-and from JNB
* Future of QF flights to-and from LHR
* Future of QF CEO, Chairman and Board
* Future of QF Frequent Flyer program
* Other Qantas announcements, route changes-or adjustments

Thanks and regards,

SA7700
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1982
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:44 pm

Quoting gemuser (Reply 66):
WOW! That is a find!
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 72):
Quoting aryonoco (Reply 78):

Im happy to have contributed! In reality though, all I was doing was backing up a statement that I had made and asked to provide a source for. Something that when asked, we all should be prepared to do.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 66):
I think its reasonably clear. A ticket from SYD/MEL-DXB-LHR is totally "metal neutral" no matter who operates the aircraft. A ticket SYD/MEL-DXB-AMS is "metal neutral" to DXB, after that its a code share on EK metal and if a QF ticket they get a commission for the DXB-AMS part.

Looking at it again in the clearer light of morning, I understand now. In the definitions the implied Operated is missing. after each Airline Name and before Trunk.

Quoting cbrboy (Reply 87):

I dont think the foreign ownership restrictions are the issue, and are merely a distraction. QF have perhaps played on this to get the debt guarantee, thinking that the QSA would not be repealed. But now it looks like legislation is going up to do just that so perhaps QF have overreached?

Quoting koruman (Reply 80):
737 c-check were reduced from 41 days to 19 days because of our work giving them the fastest heavy maintenance turn times in the world

What a stunning admission of prior inneficiency on Purvinas' part. Fastest doesnt mean cheapest though....

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 74):

Yep, Im definately an employee, but I have had significant economics training and know structural adjustment when I see it. Unfortunately, many employees sadly dont recognise it on sight and their reaction to change is to try and protect what they had before the change (ie react) instead of adapting to the change (ie proact). The Australian workplace, whilst at the same time maintaining good standards, needs to move forward and unfortunately im not sure how many employees really see that. When I say move forward I mean individuals need think about more forward planning as to where they will be in x years time, what will their industry look like, what global impacts could be a problem. Be more aware of the future and try and work within it. Im not saying we all need to buy crystal balls, but just think about more than the here and now and how good it used to be and how we can make it better in the future. And there endeth my 45,000ft sermon and philosophising!!!
 
CBRboy
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:03 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:57 pm

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 90):

I dont think the foreign ownership restrictions are the issue, and are merely a distraction. QF have perhaps played on this to get the debt guarantee, thinking that the QSA would not be repealed. But now it looks like legislation is going up to do just that so perhaps QF have overreached?

Just to finish off tonight on this thread - the Government may put forward QSA repeal legislation, but it will not be passed by the current Senate. As for the Senate after 30 June, that depends partly on Clive Palmer and partly on the new election for Senators from Western Australia.
 
Flyingsottsman
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:32 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:59 pm

Well I am hoping that the news wont be as bad as what some have said, however I think its time for the board to go, its time for Joyce and Clifford to go I dont think they even have a vision now, they have cut QF to a shadow of its former self, if routes are to be cut tomorrow I dont know how much more QF can cut. I would love to know what EK is thinking about all of this.
How much of an impact has JQ had on QF and are they partly to blame for the mess that QF is in?
And does both Airbus and Boeing take a little bit of the blame to for the delays of the A380 and Boeing with the delay of the 787 that seemed to totaly muck up QF's plans. Also has the partnership with EK made any difference at all to QF?
 
Razza74
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:17 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:42 pm

Of a time gone by

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UoSLavikZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU0h-CfPTXU

I apologise for the quality but I am sure you get the sentiment


Razza74

[Edited 2014-02-26 06:48:18]
Ahh the joy of living under a flightpath
 
User avatar
qf2220
Posts: 1982
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:16 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:48 pm

Quoting Flyingsottsman (Reply 92):
And does both Airbus and Boeing take a little bit of the blame to for the delays of the A380 and Boeing with the delay of the 787 that seemed to totaly muck up QF's plans. Also has the partnership with EK made any difference at all to QF?

The directors who signed off on these deals without sufficient alternative plans being in place should be the most responsible for this. Surely new fleets are expected to be later than the manufacturers promises?
 
JQflightie
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:18 pm

It's starting already   it started with a txt msg at 0441 AEST
Goodluck my colleagues...
When is my next holiday?
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:03 pm

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 94):
Surely new fleets are expected to be later than the manufacturers promises?

Nah, not back then, not if it was Boeing.

Other aircraft had some entry into service issues, of course, but not (comparatively) many, and nothing like the delays that affected the 787.

And part of the problem was that no one could conceive the eventual length of the delays, which were announced incrementally. Perhaps if airlines had known how long the delays would be there might - might - have been greater defections, but to a real extent airlines believed what they had been promised as to capability. So - a six month delay? The airlines could handle that. Another six months? Ahhh - that's unfortunate. And so it went.

And where else did airlines go? It benefitted the A330, but that was going pretty much flat chat anyway. A two wait for the A330 - they'd have the 787 by then, Boeing had said so.

To some extent, it was compounded by the love affair that airlines were having with the idea of the 787, when some quite sensible people said some quite silly things - "the drug-like rush of the 787" - and this was compounded by the A380 delays and the belief that Boeing would not - could not - make similar mistakes.

So it is one thing to dump on the BOD for their lack of foresight, but very few people in the world had that foresight.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
aerohottie
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:09 pm

In contrast to what Qantas are likely to announce today.... here is Air NZ's interim result announced this morning.
http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webconte...0149/AirNZinvestorPresentation.pdf
What?
 
Flyingsottsman
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:32 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:46 am

Quoting QF2220 (Reply 90):
I dont think the foreign ownership restrictions are the issue, and are merely a distraction. QF have perhaps played on this to get the debt guarantee, thinking that the QSA would not be repealed. But now it looks like legislation is going up to do just that so perhaps QF have overreached?

Looking at the news tonight I think the Abbott Government are going to have problems redoing the QSA, from the looks of things Labour and the Greens are going to block that move, they are worreid that Qantas will not be Australian owned and independant NIck Xeaphon (I know I have spelt his name wrong) wants a full inquiry as to how QF got into the position and he is shouting for the head of Alan Joyce and Lee Clifford. So I dont know what he is going to get out of it?
 
Flyingsottsman
Posts: 801
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:32 pm

RE: Australian Aviation Thread Part 90

Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:14 am

On the news tonight , the Unions are starting to threaten strike action. If QF is realy hurting now this action will inflict even more pain on the airline I dont know what they are hoping to get out of this. And when the unions threaten this action Billy Shorten and Labour wont say a thing, this is the last thing Qantas needs right now.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos