It seems like with most things aviation we have lost the premise of the original post.
Frankfurt is being touted as an unsustainable port. Having done the run quite a few times I can't see how a full aircraft can't make money. That is of course unless that aircraft is required to support a huge bureacracy of accountants, marketers administrators and others.. People so far removed from the operation of aircraft that they wouldn't know the difference between a 747 and a double decker bus.
Then roll into the equation a number of regional interests and LCC and you start to see why. The cost of running an airline is not only staff. Depsite what GD maintains they are not simply a cost. Mainline touted as a "legacy carrier"( he likes it so much) but why?
Sure there are efficiencies in all departments, i would suggest that as they relate to flight operations and aircraft operations they have been reduced significantly. The product promised by marketers fails to materialise so often that it is my assertion it is time to spend money repairing the brand, because if the tree is pruned much more, it will in fact die.
So why isn't Frankfurt making money, or Rome. Paris itself had frequency issues, but you got Orly just down road a bit how about developing another port?
The secret lies in the accounts. As I and others have said, the competing units J* AO don't pay full price for transferred services and equipment. In particular with no financial information available on their performance it is easy for GD to assert mainline is a "legacy" In order to develop leverage on the heavily unionised workforce that causes GD so much grief, he continually points to the threat LCC's represent. But how much of a threat is J* if it paid its own way on infrastructure, fuel and people. If a specialist employee is seconded for a year does J* pay for the provision of sick leave, long service, holidays and wages for example.
GD is quick to point out that emirates or Singapore enjoy significant benefits that mean the playing field is less than ideal, from depreciation to government support. How much financial support is in the numbers that we don't see which continues the myth that J* is so lean and QF so fat?
Go look for the information, it isn't there. Financial accounts are by law required by be a true representation of the company. If transfer pricing means that COSTS are loaded onto mainline, then the accounts are not accurate and do not represent a true and proper picture. Mind you it serves GD's agenda very well.
So let's see J* opened up and presented to the investor and staff. Let us ask why do they not pay market price for things they use from mainline....If after due dilligence it is clear they do stand alone as an excellent business model with accurately reported costs of business, then I'm satisfied.
I somehow suspect as this is the key to the crap spouted by management and not likely to see the light of day!
Mind you the staff engagement survey results might make them wonder a bit
