Would it be fair to deduce that with the grounding costs of $95...sorry what day is it, $195 million, plus the $300 million for the restructure that a loss of $244 mil is really a profit of $250 mil without the negative efforts of AJ and co? That's not bad at all. How are we losing money again?
Would it be fair to deduce that with the grounding costs of $95...sorry what day is it, $195 million, plus the $300 million for the restructure that a loss of $244 mil is really a profit of $250 mil without the negative efforts of AJ and co? That's not bad at all. How are we losing money again?
Make no mistake. QANTAS is profitable, including the International operations. As has been pointed out, there is continual waste, back flips, cancellations, embarking on new ventures, which wipe out any profits of the group, and the losses are then allocated against Inernational. I don't know of any company that has 3 CEO's to run it. More waste and more layers of management. The Domestic and International CEO's are obviously the buffer for AJ should one of the "businesses" not perform so well, then it is the "CEO" of that business that gets the bullet, and AJ's position remains intact.
As far as AJ and Co are concerned, everything that is good is bad, and everything that is bad is International.
Don't forget also that this sort of organisational structure is a way of a CEO attempting to blame others when it turns to dust or the reported message turns out to be something other than what was stated. Even better if the incumbents leave in the meantime.
Whilst it is dressed up as a profit driver, it is usually anything but that and forms a smoke and mirrors charade.
Many contributors to this thread are right about the many problems that Qantas faces, but the reality is that Alan Joyce and the board don't read these posts and don't care what is said if they did. They have the high ground on managing the business whether we like it or not and it's only the major shareholders that can change that. I wonder what THEY would think of think of these posts. If anyone has something to contribute on that, it might be interesting.
Many contributors to this thread are right about the many problems that Qantas faces, but the reality is that Alan Joyce and the board don't read these posts and don't care what is said if they did. They have the high ground on managing the business whether we like it or not and it's only the major shareholders that can change that. I wonder what THEY would think of think of these posts. If anyone has something to contribute on that, it might be interesting.
Aeromedic, you're right about this. AJ and Co also don't care what the investors think either. What is needed is a few more interviews with Leigh Sales and maybe another session in front of the Senate Committee. But this will only have any effect if the questions can be asked without being pre-scripted and have the accounts of QANTAS checked to see which part of the company is bleeding the other.
As has been repeated by AJ over the last 12 or so months, International is dragging everyone else down, and when it's said enough times, it becomes believable. Even the management start to believe their own guff.
Ushuaia, I can't believe I'm even saying this, but it has been reported by AJ on many accounts that RR paid $95million for QF32 and the remainder under insurance, and that it was a design fault in the engine that caused the explosion and is part of their financial reporting and so on. AJ didn't try and blame the engineers this time (he must have slipped up on that one).
Yes, you are absolutely right, mate. I know that, you know that, most people in the industry know that. But ask around amongst Joe Public a bit. See what THEIR perceptions and recollections are. You will be dismayed, as I am. They blame Qantas, they see it as a Qantas failing. From the taxi driver, to the hairdresser, to the banker. That is what the average impression is. There are exceptions; I am talking about the average.
QF used to have two big differentiators; two things people were happy to pay extra for. "Australianism" and Safety. We have blown the first one by doing things like cutting QF international routes, replacing them with JQ flights filled with Thai cabin crew, or Jetconnect flights filled with Kiwis, and having an image of offshoring as much of the airline as possible. The latter is not as significant as the public thinks, but it doesn't matter - that is what they think. Ask them. The engineers rhetoric has not helped in that regard. And I heard a terrible "Qantas" experience today from complete strangers who flew NZ-Aus and were well aware it was Jetconnect and that it wasn't "Australian". They have now given up on Qantas - their next international flight is to be with EK. They volunteered the story to me with no prompting at all.
The second differentiator, Safety: we have blown it with how PR has handled many of the incidents that were not QF's fault, and indeed how too many trivial things even make it into the media. The media has a lot to answer for here but QF PR shares blame here also - unable to reign in the media clowns, unable to convince the media to leave things like RTO stories and G/A stories alone. Note how every such story invariably trots out a litany of QF's recent failings in the final paragraphs, thus reinforcing the negative perceptions. Qantas is still definitely safe, no question, indeed safer than most other airlines but the public doesn't think that anymore.
In the end, the differentiators are gone. QF is just another airline in the eyes of the public, and one that has an inferior cabin product and is more expensive. So it is little wonder we are losing market share.
Just some extracts out of this 28 page monthly document. This is the most recent, May 2012.
51 airlines operated services into and out of Australia.
1,000,238 inbound passengers on 6,214 inbound flights.
1,096,730 outbound passengers on 6209 outbound flights.
QANTAS International makes up just 2% of international airlines flying in and out of Australia and carried 186,325 inbound passengers (18.6%), 200,064 outbound passengers (18.2%) and flew 1,157 flights in and 1,156 flights out, making up 18.6% of flights in and out.
On average, QANTAS has an 18.4% share of the international market, followed by Singapore at 9.4%, Virgin Australia at 8.9%, Emirates at 8.3% and Jetstar at 8.0%.
When AJ uttered those famous words in August 2011 "When 100 people go to an Australian international airport, right now, only 18 of them choose a QANTAS flight" he failed to mention that the other 82 fly on 50 other different airlines that go to places we don't go, and that the average seat utilisation on a QANTAS flight is 72.15%, much like its competitors SQ at 72.6%, VA at 72.9%, Jetstar at 72.25% and much better than Emirates at 60.15%.
If you choose to delve into the other figures going back, there hasn't been much change in the marketshare over time, and QANTAS maintaining an almost double share of the Australian market over its nearest competitor, and doing it with "aging aircraft, crappier service, outdated less comfortable interiors" and a very poor performing management team. People still want to fly the red tail, even though their choice to is being diminished by poor executive decisions and poor fleet choices.
You cannot just grab May 2012's figures, make sweeping statements about maintaining a double market share over the next airline and then somehow translate that into things not changing much over time. I don't have the time to drag out all the references, but yes, delving back into time: about 10-15 years ago Qantas International had a bit over 35% of the traffic out of Australia. Now it has 18%, and the Group has 26% of the traffic when you include Jetstar. So overall, over time, yes, market share has been lost.
There are a number of reasons for this: extra capacity is one very big reason but the other reason is we have driven customers to that alternative capacity. You just have to ask Joe Public - they "used to fly Qantas but, sorry, now I am flying XYZ." I have alluded already to the reasons why QF has driven customers away.
I posted this in the Virgin results thread but equally pertinent here. This is QF management spin at its best!
Quote:
Quote: Virgin Australia Full Year Results
============================================================ ============= Virgin Australia has reported a statutory Net Profit After Tax of $22.8 million. However, with a $29 million loss in the second half of the year, Virgin's profit figures have disappointed some shareholders.
It's important to note that Virgin - with a domestic market share of around 30 per cent - made an underlying EBIT of $115.6m, while Qantas and Jetstar - with a combined domestic market share of 65 per cent - made a combined underlying EBIT of over $600m.
Virgin is half the size of Qantas yet its profit was just one sixth the size of ours. This shows the Qantas domestic strategy to achieve a profit maximising 65 per cent market share target is working.
If QF managements plans were so good, why would they feel the need to put out such a statement? Perhaps teflon terry should worry about the airline he runs and nobody else's.
That's the one of the funniest things I've seen! Many a true word said in jest!! It's almost as funny as Keg's picture of the QF32 book in the fiction section!!!
