As was sent to me.
Interesting spin.
Media are reporting on our ranking....We rank low in this study of airline efficiency and carbon emissions when flying across the Pacific. We rank low in this study because we use larger aircraft, fly very long distances and have premium cabins that naturally have fewer people on board...
Dear Angels,
- The great circle track 'across the Pacific' is the same. Although flex tracking changes this slightly.
- RPK is the Revenue passenger kilometres, this may change with cabin configuration.
- Larger aircraft burn more fuel.
- They also have four engines (in the Qantas fleet)
Thus the simple fact that your fleet growth sat with JQ (from 36 to 120 aircraft) Your genius board and executive management took a viable airline in 2009 and trashed the brand in 2011 in a 'terminal decline' grounding and lockout. Only to handsomely reward themselves for its 'transformation'.
This was all done with:
- The same fleet A380 and B747
- The same contracts
- and the same staff.
Sadly despite your attempt to spin it otherwise
your fuel included CASK is higher than your competitors because
instead of strategically positioning your airline for efficiency with a twin engined fleet, your management ran an IR campaign. 'Right fleet right route; exists only in the minds of marketing and branding, it sounds nice but is ultimately as hollow as the transformation.
This report suggests rather subtly, that Qantas is neither efficient nor transformed.
With a grand total of 8 787 and
your management signing up to the IATA fuel efficiency targets of:
(1) a 1.5% average annual improvement in fuel efficiency from 2009 to 2020; (2) carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and (3) a 50% absolute reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.
It may be time for another manufactured decline (you know an industrial dispute) in case management are shown to be the myopic self serving group this independent report suggests your management are