Originally Posted by
Paragraph377
Qantas has had 100 years to hone their craft. Virgin a lot less time in the saddle. Qantas were always innovators or made the first step, Virgin are followers and ride coattails. Qantas has/was always stacked with analysts - fuel, economy, markets, etc, some very smart, savvy and experienced folk. They had people who knew every inch of the region, knew every Mayor or Council CEO and would engage often. Virgin often has specialists, wannabe’s and kiddies in those roles, and not many of them either. They don’t know the regions, markets, or key people. They were too busy getting wet spots over Federal Government politicians and famous people sitting in 1a. Qantas set up a large freight network with associated infrastructure and contracts. VA bought 777’s with no ULD freight capability. Big big big mistake. Another one to add to the list. You can’t compare VA with QF. It’s like comparing a vagina to a dick.
And before some sook starts accusing me of wanting to see VA collapse, get your emotions in check because that’s not what I want. I’m just stating my opinion on a rumour network. My later years after retiring from flying saw me managing businesses interests that gave me a full comprehension and accurate understanding of how both our national airlines and Governments and how they work. Qantas isn’t perfect and in my opinion they’ve made mistakes over the years. Deferring fleet upgrades for so long that they now have the oldest fleet they’ve ever had, and buying the Dugong are mistakes. AJ will be long gone with his bag of money under his arm when the fleet issues bite hard and they have to spend a motza which will impact profits, but that is a story for the not-so-distant future.
When you make statements that are patently wrong, it brings your other statements into question.
Qantas has had 100 years to hone their craft: Irrelevant, I don't think there is a company around that operates in the same manner as it did 100 yrs ago, especially with the style of management of the last 30 yrs and considering pre and post privatisation and considering the pre 90's QF was likely a national asset that operated with the national interests in mind. Since then, I'd go as far to say it changes with each change of management and what their focus is.
Qantas were always innovators or made the first step,: I don't agree with this either, a long way off the mark. Ansett was way in front of QF: introduced First Class, got rid of the middle seat in Biz Class, intro'd lounges at the airports and prior to its demise started self check-in.
Imo QF has been somewhat historically lucky. The following is my view of history: Ansett pre dispute was a cash cow that made lots of dough for the two owners (Newscorp and TNT; Murdoch & Ables). It was what funded Murdoch's international expansion, without which he would not be where he is today, it also funded Ables's aborted attempt to expand TNT into an international company with it's European foray that resulted in TNT turning Dutch. The dispute cost both Ansett and Australian Airlines (TAA) dearly, then followed dereg which killed the cash cow. Neither owner were interested in funding AN as it was loaded with debt and I doubt they could see the return justifying any reinvestment, so it wallowed from '88 up to its end in '01. Prior to QF being gifted TN for 400m with around 400m in debt owed to the fed gov being forgiven, AN & TN fought over the interstate market for a few % points either side of 50% as there were Ms of $ in it. When QF acquired TN we were told that it would take QF two yrs to bed TN in, then they would "kick our heads in" (that is what I recalled as the language used). In the lead up to QF's privatisation AN started losing fed gov contracts it'd managed to hold yr after yr. Approaching 911 AN was down to 45% of the interstate market and we were obviously in the sh!t, we were told if we didn't gain that back we were in real trouble. 911 happens and just like today with VA and CV19, it went south. Prior to AN's demise, AN held a stranglehold on the intrastate travel, how that was gifted to QF who also only faced a low cost operator in
VB on the interstate market, it went on to take 60 to 65% of that and holds that to this day.
QF's position imo isn't because of great management, but imo luck. As Eddington said when he came, AN was a great company, but a poor business. The arguments that AN's pay scales far exceeded QF is nothing but bs. Michael West pointed out that when AN went into Admin there were related party transactions that we not investigated taking a substantial amount of cash out prior to admin. So QF now had a the interstate and intrastate markets sown up and the high yield biz market to itself.
I recall being told that economy was the scone and biz travel the cream and that you needed both to do well.
VB was a low cost op and QF countered that with Jetstar, so along comes Borgetti to rectify that, but with a company not well financially which, again imo, was a mirror image of AN. Poorly managed with loads of debt and a behemoth overlooking it.
Nothing will change with the present situation, no one in their right sense would see the returns gained that would justify the investment needed to take QF on, it has a massive moat around its market. Risk/ reward!
Any revamp will be to tart it up and on sell it down the track and as with nearly every IPO future failing of the newly listed company.