They book QF end up on Emirates, they enjoy the experience, which website do you think that they will go to next time?
The Qantas product isn't all that bad. There are pros and cons for both carriers. I have flown a lot on both, and they have they good and bad points. I don't think every 'QF' customer who travels will only ever go on EK metal again. Plus - it is a revenue share deal anyway, so QF will profit by QF coded customers.
QF cannot do the same because?
Qantas has established businesses e.g. catering, fleet presentation etc. They can't simply shut up shop and tender that business. You need a greenfield business like Virign, Tiger and Jetstar, who can. Qantas is burdened by their established businesses, as they can't tender work to compete (against themselves). I am sure if Qantas could, it would close down all of it. They're inefficient. Having more sub-contractor competition in the market drives competition, efficiency, and value. So Qantas has costs for this infrastructure at an AUS cost base, in the likes for SYD / MEL / PER etc. Singapore, only has one port (Changi), already on a lower cost base, and leveraging economies of scale that Qantas can't. This is especially the case for fleet specific equipment. Let's say you have a truck for the A380 in MEL. There are only two movements for QF 380's. In Changi, there are a large number. Now if Qantas had all the ground handling work in Melbourne, then Qantas would be in a better position. However, there are a lot of providers in Melbourne. Competition is fierce. Qantas cannot compete on cost with these other operators. On the other hand, in Changi, there are only really two suppliers - for all airlines. SATS and Dnata. Huge volume. Limited competition. There is a third, which Jetstar just moved to, but they are a start-up from what I understand.
Jetstar has COST QF money.
I disagree with this on the basis that the Australian franchise makes money. I believe it has since day one. Yes, the others may not be, but we can't expect the start-up's to make money. And then you have industry downturn, which affects everyone. We have just moved through this. On all accounts, I understand the franchises are on the upswing... We will see.
QF red tail fleet decisions have been mismanaged. Wrong choices have been made over the last 15 years.
Agree with this. The vision of A380 / B787 was the 2000 dream. It was the model at the time. The landscape (aviation) was different then, to what it is today. The delays with both aircraft type also caused an impact. It would not be fair to blame 'management' 100%, but I agree a portion should be.
Jetstar, Internationally has underachieved. Yet it has been given capital.
It must be noted that Qantas is only a shareholder, and has only partly funded these businesses. It is shared risk. And the investment is quite small, relative to the overall CAPEX. Qantas does need to be entrepreneurial at the same time. To invest in revenue opportunities. This is the basis of the franchises. But these a tough businesses, in tough economies. But I think it is right to give it a go. Someone else will. I still believe there is good in this. I think time will deliver. But if they don't, this is not large money lost. Yes it is money - but the payoff could be even bigger for the Group.
since the outfit in question has been known as "Jetstar Pacific" for 7 years now.
Qantas may have been an investor, but I don't believe Qantas has had an active role in transforming the business. I think this has started now. Vietnam is a challenge to do business in. I think it has taken time to get it right, and I think this is now. JP is growing. The fleet has been improved. Synergies are being leveraged. I think you'll see JP go from strength-to-strength.
You conspicuously failed to mention Jetstar Hong Kong. Presumably it's in "embryonic start-up".
It is hard to blame Qantas on this. There are politics at play in HKG. This is clear. I again say that Qantas is only an equal shareholder in this investment. Let us hope it gets legs soon. CX is doing everything it can to stop this start-up.
In fairness for this part of the argument, I believe QF subcontract their catering/ground staff etc in Singapore to SATS -- which is owned by Singapore Airlines. There is no such catering truck sitting around SIN all day waiting for QF to arrive. Surely this is indicative of other stations around the world??
On the other hand, QF used to do the lions share of foreign airline ground handling in Australia until the past few years when anecdotally contracts were given away by management jacking up prices by 50+%
You have misunderstood my commentary. I refer to Australian operations, not international. All ground handing in offshore ports is by third parties. My argument is that in AUS, there are no economies of scale, due to end-of-line operations, were Qantas has to supply all the required infrastructure in multiple ports, to service low volume operations. Versus high density operations SQ enjoys in their hub of Changi.
Qantas ground handling has lost contracts simply because they cannot compete with other Australian providers. Now that catering, fleet presentation etc., are all stand-alone in that they are responsible for their own P + L's, they have to price to deliver returns. The cost base of these legacy operations is way higher than the likes of your Dnata / Toll's, Menzies, Aerocare etc. Just compare wages as a start. It is difficult for Qantas to drive cost improvements in these businesses, as so much has been built on legacy. You need pretty big transformation. That usually means a new cost base. Hard to do when you don't have the luxury of a greenfield business.