You can’t be serious. 3 787s will burn the same amount of fuel as 1 380.
Precisely Troo.
The source of Qantas International's 'profitability' was:
- Drop in fuel price leading to FUEL cost saving of $597 million.
- A curiously well timed impairment of the International fleet (CGU) resulting in a reduction of $326 million non-cash charge in deprecaition
That the fuel fuel price declined and has stayed, despite some contango lower with the accumulated depreciation reduction is the base case for profitability. When combined with the fact that the FY14 'loss' allowed carried forward tax credits for the next few years ceteris paribus, the source of the profitability is largely financial and a bit of luck.
With the tax offsets gone and higher fuel price,
Qantas is again exposed as their fleet metrics lag the industry such that when fuel price rises
their fuel included CASK increase disproportionately to their peers.
Overlooking the statement that Little Napoleon sprouted out about fuel cost recovery by the end of the year, you neglected to mention two caveats:
- International demand remaining as it is (ie no worsening of the international economy
- No other pertinent change.
It is possible that this is the case, it is equally possible that declining demand and yield falls impact revenue.
Perhaps the reason the competitors are actually withdrawing capacity is because they assess that yields will fall and the world economy worsens.
Thus with a narrower operating margin than their competitors due their horrible fleet metrics, the gap closes (revenue declining quickly and costs largely static and higher than their competitors) far quicker than it does for their competitors due their fuel inefficient lagging the industry fleet mix.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-...-study/9333616