The lions share of Capacity into and out of Australia, deteriorating service, "Sydeny- centric", job cuts rewarded by a record profit?
Only the big banks and Telstra do more damage to Australia than Qantas.
But then of course it's GD's last result isn't it? He no doubt leaves with money bags brimming leaving the next poor sod to pick up the pieces.
By the way "THe Qantas Group" seems to me to be an excuse for creating a multitude of senior management positions and a marvellous opportunity for creative accounting. I wonder what cross subsidies are applied across the group?
From a marketing perspective, I also think that it dilutes the value of the QF brand.
The only thing it has done is to provide a way of paring back QF wages and conditions through a multitude of interrelated EBA's.
Oh Gawd.....It's back again. Wasn't it pleasant for a while there without his QF bashing , and " I know everything " diatribes. BTW since when does 32.2% International market share indicate " The lions share of capacity into and out of Australia " ?. In case you missed it Sunfish.... Air Transport World's Airline of the year 2004....Qantas. Qantas...Best managed airline in the world...ATW 2005. Airline Business 2005 Award for Executive Leadership to Geoff Dixon.
By the way "THe Qantas Group" seems to me to be an excuse for creating a multitude of senior management positions....
On that I agree.
... and a marvellous opportunity for creative accounting. I wonder what cross subsidies are applied across the group?
There are a few. A bloke I know went to management and said 'I know how to increase revenue by X dollars'. Management was ecstatic and asked him how. His response was along the lines of 'charge AO the same as we charge for every other 'outside customer' instead of giving it to them at a subsidised rate'. No prizes for guessing the response from management.
Double edged sword that one. AOs figures look better than they should be and the 'mainline' figures look worse than they should be. Mainline gets told they they're not being competitive enough and need to cut costs further.
And furthermore, one minute QF is "Australia's Flag Carrier" and the next it is a "Global Airline".
Global my a**! Anyone care to compare the fleet sizes and routes of QF compared to any other line?
Lets face it, QF is a tiny niche player in the marketplace, one that is entirely protected from real "Global" airlines by a Government totally Sydney-centric to the detriment of every other Australian who doesn't live in Sydney. You simply pretend to be a force in the international marketplace. United probably scrap more aircraft in one year than the entire QF fleet.
Good management? QF gets to extract an extra billion dollars from the wallets of Australians when every other airline in the world - real "Global" airlines, is barely making money! Is that good management? Well I suppose it is, If management is about licking the private parts of government ministers to maintain your market share at the expense of consumers.
We would all be better off if QF was told to f&*^ off and we had open skies. Then at least the inbound tourism markets would open up, instead of everyone being dragged kicking and screaming through Sydney.
Why don't you care to enlighten us with some facts to back up your ranting?
Given the numbers indicated below, Qantas is hardly a 'tiny niche player' - however feel free to prove me wrong.
And as much as I don't necessarily agree with the way in which Qantas is being managed, the fact that they're still making money is a good thing - certainly better than the Australian governmnet having to bail them out, like so many of their competitors...
The Qantas fleet consists of the following aircraft (at August 2005):
* 4 Airbus A330-200
* 7 Airbus A330-300 (further 3 on order)
* 1 Boeing 737-300
* 21 Boeing 737-400
* 28 Boeing 737-800 (further 5 on order)
* 5 Boeing 747-300
* 30 Boeing 747-400
* 24 Boeing 767-300
Cathay Pacific Fleet from Wikipedia
Airbus A330-300 20 J44/Y267(311) Airbus A330-333 5 P8/J32/Y211(251) With New Business Class Airbus A340-300 (34C) 5 P8/J30/Y205(243) With New Business Class Airbus A340-300 (34D) 10 J30/Y257(287) Airbus A340-600 3 P8/J60/Y218(286) With New Business Class Boeing 747-200F 6 - Boeing 747-400 15 P12/J47/Y324(383) Boeing 747-400 Premium 4 P12/J65/Y268(345) Boeing 747-400F 5 - Boeing 777-200 5 J45/Y291(336) Boeing 777-300 11
The British Airways fleet consists of the following aircraft (at June 2005):
* 33 Airbus A319-100 (further 3 on order)
* 5 Airbus A320-100
* 21 Airbus A320-200
* 6 Airbus A321-200 ( further 1 on order)
* 5 Boeing 737-300
* 19 Boeing 737-400
* 10 Boeing 737-500
* 57 Boeing 747-400
* 13 Boeing 757-200
* 20 Boeing 767-300ER
* 3 Boeing 777-200
* 40 Boeing 777-200ER
* Boeing 747-422
Number in fleet: 31
Servicesast Asia, South Pacific, Washington to Frankfurt, ferry and positioning flights between hubs
* Boeing 777-222
Number in fleet: 56
Configuration: 36/312 (North America), 12/49/197 (transatlantic), 10/45/198 (transpacific)
Services: international, transcontinental
* Boeing 767-322ER
Number in fleet: 37
Configuration: 34/210 (domestic), 10/32/151 (international)
Services: transcontinental, transatlantic
* Boeing 757-222
Number in fleet: 96
Configuration: 21/158 (standard), 12/26/72 (JFK to SFO and LAX)
* Boeing 737-522
Number in fleet: 57
Configuration: 8/96 (standard), 8/102 (former shuttle)
Services: domestic short-haul
* Boeing 737-322
Number in fleet: 101
Configuration: 8/112 (standard), 8/120 (former shuttle)
Services: domestic short-haul
* Airbus A320
Number in fleet: 90
Services: domestic short-haul, transcontinental
* Airbus A319
Number in fleet: 55
Services: domestic short-haul
Get over it Sunny old chap! Were it not for your eccentricity, we could probably have a worthwile discussion. I'm sorry, but are you really a complete Richard Cranium? You sure write like one.
Over the years, the Qantas decision-makers know what they were and are doing. They do things by and large very well subject to some union nasties, poor government policy and direction as well as some outrageous work practices. If airlines believed that the punters really wanted to go to Melbourne, why would they bring them to Sydney instead? Like it or not, and ignore the fact at your peril, but Sydney is the primary target on the radar of more than 90% of the visitors attracted to Australia. This view is shared by most airlines serving Australia. Ever heard of market forces, Sunny boy? Qantas follows market forces closely and if you care to look at route seat factors, you will see that on most routes they capably match capacity with demand.
Pray, Sunfish, can you tell us
(1) how many carriers serve Sydney versus Melbourne on direct overseas flights?
(2) how many direct flights are offered each week ex Melbourne and ex Sydney?
(3) have you ever looked at, let alone analyse, the aviation stats published by the Aust govt each month? If you did, you would know that in April 05, Melbourne attracted 20.0% of International movements and 20% of the SLF. Sydney attracted 43.8% of the movemnts and 46.2% of the SLF. Do these numbers tell you anything? As they include freighter movements, they margins would be wider in Sydney if we discounted the freighters.
(4) why did that bastion of the Melbourne establishment, the late but little lamented Ansett, base its International airline in Sydney and operate its Japan, Hong Kong and Indonesian flights direct from and to Sydney?
(5) when and how often have you been forced to travel internationally over Sydney instead of a direct Melbourne flight?
Sunny, you whining may have been justified a few years ago, but today it simply means that you are yesterday's man. Have a gripe against Dixon and his greed if you like but show a bit of judgement and less emotion about the majority of the good people who are Qantas. The poor buggers are just doing their best in the most difficult and, quite often, unhappiest of circumstances.
Sunfish, can you explain your reasoning of why QF should not fly to Sydney but should concentrate on other cities (I presume you mean Melbourne). Can't seem to understand your logic, the more I read the more I think you have been drinking too much before you post (it doesn't always make sense).
Haven't got into analysis of the numbers yet, a little jetlagged.
As Keg alluded to and even old Sunfish has picked up on it. I t is a clever accountant's spin that nominally dervies a number for J*. There is so much borrowed infrastructure and personnel that there are clearly issues with respect to the preparation of the accountants. Much is loaded back to mainline, which has its accounts presented , whereas the other entities aren't presented as stand alone trading entities...Its a great way to hide real costs.
And from what I have seen the Share price is still stuck, so maybe the markets are waking up........
Mind you it's a great way to continually threaten your workforce by pointing out how well J* does and how bad we at mainline do......Engagement they call it