Originally Posted by
a_pilot
traffic..
once again thanks for the clarification
Yes, I was comparing JQ to the total group (JQ + QF), and not JQ vs QF.
Yes, JQ, do fly 47% ASK (compared to QF and not the whole group as a total) for 29% revenue, but lets not forget what is important. Do we want profit or revenue ?
When we look at profit (EBIT), JQ make 40% profit (as a percentage of QF profit) for 47% ASK.
In the meantime, QF INTL only make 34% profit (as a percentage of QF profit) with 69% ASK (QF ASK). Is QF INTL better than JQ ?
JQ, $461 million profit vs QF INTL $399 million profit.
JQ, 48,736 ASK vs QF INTL 69,280 ASK ?
JQ made 15% more profit with only 70% of the ASK as QF INTL. Is JQ really such a basket case ? Is it really such a waste of resources ? Doesn't JQ provide the group a better return than QF INTL ? Shouldn't this be were more resources go ?
Clarification or correction? Comparing JQ to 'group'
was not the calculation presented it was as you now clarify JQ to QF.
Reading a set of CONSOLIDATED financial statements that provide no detail on how Management apportion costs between the segments, means that whilst complying with the requisite standard, management have a 'low bar to clear' They are well aware of that. Qantas provide zero detail on costs between segments, nor does the standard require them to. However, the unique lack of detail about JQ
necessitates one trusting Little Napoleon and his gang of robber barons, taking their claims at face value. Thus to have any confidence, other than the word of Little Napoleon requires a leap of faith.
- This is the same Little Napoleon that on a Saturday morning in October 2011 claimed to have grounded an entire airline, apparently all by himself.
- This is the same Little Napoleon that rushed to the ACCC stating Qantas International was 'in terminal decline' and needed an exception to the Competition laws. Show us where the 'amazing alliance' generated revenue for Qantas?
- This is the same Little Napoleon that in December 2013 apparently needed $3 billion of tax payer funds. Only to rescind the requirement six weeks later. Within 18 months a 'transformation' had occurred. Amazing that his, and the insider options also vested at the same time!
If JQ really did all these amazing things, Qantas would segment their business into two operating segments; Domestic and International. They choose not to.
If JQ Asia was an 'amazing' business they would not need to hide it in JQ group.
If JQ in Vietnam was an amazing business, why was it necessary to classify the details surrounding the commercial terms of the release of two executives as 'for Australian eyes only"?
JQ made 15% more profit with only 70% of the ASK as QF INTL. Is JQ really such a basket case ? Is it really such a waste of resources ? Doesn't JQ provide the group a better return than QF INTL ? Shouldn't this be were more resources go ?
Just how much of the resources are actually consumed by JQ to generate that 'profit' is very fortunately for the gang at KPMG a question they do not have to address.
Qantas need a new fleet.