Originally Posted by
RealityCzech
Amazing that the 787 could have given a “30% productivity increase” to quote FLightDeck above. If this is accurate then the non-787 long haul terms and conditions must’ve been horribly unproductive to begin with.
Seeing as though you posit that the contract to which you allude is 'unproductive' how about some reality?
- Firstly the existing contract (which the pilots have myopically killed off as it is ring fenced on dying/not growing fleets) is a bit better than most comparable airlines, in comparable terms (Purchasing power adjusted parity)
- Given the stage length the CASK metric is GOOD.
- Include FUEL in the CASK and Qantas slides..(wrong fleet)
- The RASK metrics are good, bu adding fuel to the RASK reduces operating margin
- It was little Napoleon that claimed the cicra 30% saving.
Don't forget Qantas made a record 'transformation' profits in FY15,FY16 and FY17 without a new contract, and fleet of 787 pilots flying it
The contract in reality was never the issue.
The fleet needed renewal a decade ago.
Still waiting for the illumination you promised on JQ