Originally Posted by Fedsec
Originally Posted by romulus
There's a difference between the cost of a given check and the actual full cost of the facility SP.
When a company does it's quotes it generally rolls in overhead costs. The tender should reflect all these. The quote was not just for one aircraft. It was a $200M reconfig price across an entire fleet. 2.5% difference.
That's not the QF way. When we were supposedly competing against the benchmarks we soon realised QF central was paying a number of key costs (eg insurance) that were not broken down and included in the competitive model.
Sort of. That competition didn't take the fully costed facility into account. As I understand it that was a key determining issue.
Originally Posted by Fedsec
Originally Posted by romulus
All the whitespace during downtime is the real crux of the issue, there's a huge cost there that needs addressing.
Very true. If you strip out all your work and create a maintenance plan with a lot of holes in it, of course it will be inefficient. Qantas chose to plan it that way. We answered the plan with a solution made to match. No work to do-no pay.
Agreed. And that is why I am trying to provide a measured and rational response to the posters who reckon the ALAEA proposal is a bad thing.
Originally Posted by Fedsec
Of course now they have a problem. They only pretended they had no work to do so they could send this work offshore but our answer has negated their pretend reason.
On Wed we will be releasing the real workloads showing available work on Qantas aircraft. They say there is 44 weeks whitespace. We have re-adjusted their plan so it has been cut back to 4 weeks. That's right, they should be running Avalon with 4 weeks whitespace and that information will be made public on Wed.
Ian if you are reading this let Alan know that the truth will come out. Better we make a joint good news announcement later this week.
Good luck with that. I look forward to seeing the info. I hope it works out, but I'm not sure the logic is hitting home.