Originally Posted by
Howard Hughes
If you can't make money with that kind of load factor, one might suggest you should probably not be in the game...
Originally Posted by
Oldmate
Yet somehow J* Intl is making money with a load factor of 69% - and many of those seats are heavily discounted....something doesn't add up.
Can I suggest that the difference is the cost structure! Jeez, on the one hand people here complain about QF cutting costs, and criticise management repeatedly for this; yet these same people seem to not recognise that the travelling public don't really care about a red kangaroo or an Orange * on the tail when they are shopping fot a $100 cheaper airfare.
Whatever the staff think they are doing to convince the travelling public to support QF by flying QF is clearly not working. Ever considered that there might be a better option? Certainly I haven't seen anything done by any union which would encourage me to fly and support QF.
Consider this and note that this is not the opinion of management or the Board - this is the reality of the world 'out there':
On February 6, this column singled out the Australian brand that combined patriotism, glamour and solidity like no other. That brand was Qantas. We suggested patriotism, prestige and solidity combined may not be enough for Qantas to survive as an international flag carrier within 10 years. In the ensuing four months, the company's share price has slid by a third to a record low as losses in the international division have climbed to $450 million a year.
The numbers show just how reckless and stupid was the union campaign against Qantas last year. Again, technology had transformed the competitive landscape. The internet may have been a boon for the Qantas budget operation, Jetstar, but it has obliterated many advantages once enjoyed by the international division.
No company is safe. No brand is safe. Dominant one decade, irrelevant the next. Adapt or die. And former customers will step over the corpse.