Qantas [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Speedbird61

29th Jul 2008, 01:36

I hope the new CEO at Qantas Alan Joyce, can get Qantas back to the brand that Australians onced loved and respected, just like in the good ole James Strong era.
Now he was a CEO, who cared about his staff more than the shareholders.
I have been a Qantas employee for over 20 years, and Geoff Dixon, whilst has been a great leader, and steered Qantas through some difficult times, he has not won over with his staff.
Most sections of Qantas are now enjoying zero morale status, thanks to Mr Dixon.
Constant threats of Outsourcing, Constant Threats of selling off sections of the company, have given staff a kick in the guts.
The staff have built Qantas to what it is today, so it would be nice to show them a little respect, and job security instead of making them worry if they will be working for Qantas tomorrow or Acme, Engineering, Catering, Baggage Services ect ect.

James Strong would go out of his way to visit all parts of Qantas, and say hello to the workers, he was well respected, and staff loved their job, and loved their company.

Happy staff equals great service, which equals happy customers, which equals happy shareholders, its a win win situation, but Mr Dixon doesn't see it that way, and sadly Qantas has lost its faith with staff, and customers.
I hope Mr Joyce can emulate James Strong and get Qantas back to where it was a long time ago.
Thanks

ANstar

29th Jul 2008, 01:46

http://www.pprune.org/forums/d-g-reporting-points/336816-joyce-new-ceo-qantas-6.html

Some discussion here

B A Lert

29th Jul 2008, 02:13

James Strong would go out of his way to visit all parts of Qantas, and say hello to the workers, he was well respected

What a load of tosh! He got the CEO's jop by shafting John F. Ward, as a result of which he was loathed by a large part of the Qantas workforce. History will show that Strong set the way for Dixon and his cost-cutting regime. Did it start with Competitive Tendering when Qantas staff (that is, work units) had to bid for their own work and therefore jobs against outside bidders?

Please don't re-write history.

Speedbird61

29th Jul 2008, 04:35

Come on now, this is all about Geoff Dixon putting shareholders first.
He couldn't give a toss about his staff and customers.
Please open your eyes, and ears, customer satisfaction is going downhill at a very fast rate.
This is due to staff morale been zero, and staff not giving a toss, and just doing what they have to do, and nothing more.

Its easy, Happy Staff = Happy Customer = Happy Shareholder.

Unhappy staff = Poor customer service = Unhappy shareholders.
I think Mr Branson had this philosophy ??, the above, Staff first.

I don't want to start a slanging match with you, I just wanted to put my view accross, and I feel its very true about the way Mr Dixon has changed Qantas for the worse.

ExSp33db1rd

29th Jul 2008, 06:01

" Its easy, Happy Staff = Happy Customer = Happy Shareholder."

Worked for 2 major carriers, one doesn't even know I've gone ( except that they've stopped paying me and are about to take my retirement staff travel off me, so I guess they do ) the second paid peanuts but invited me ( and others ) to a presentation every 6 months, where they explained why they couldn't increase the peanut ration but made one feel part of the team so that you ended up agreeing with them (!) then fed and watered the assembly far into the night. The Flight Manager also sent a personal birthday card Aaahhh !

If I had my time again I know which one I'd start with - not saying, but the water in the bath went straight down.

Speedbird61

25th Aug 2008, 01:36

Geoff Dixon has quoted that Qantas will merge with a major airline sooner rather than later.
Who do you think are the prime canidates that Qantas will merge with ?
SQ recently said it had no intention to merge with QF.
Cheers

Ken Borough

25th Aug 2008, 01:40

JETSTAR. :}:}

Tankengine

25th Aug 2008, 04:15

Geoffstar is not a major airline though, just a tiny [less than 10% of profit]
part of the "group":ugh:

satmstr

25th Aug 2008, 04:24

Maybe Air New Zealand..........

bigPONDsmallfish

25th Aug 2008, 05:40

Nah...not anz .... I just moseyed around the world with them in 7days and they have long haul well sussed!

sthaussiepilot

25th Aug 2008, 06:42

I think Air NZ would be a great choice for Qantas,

Definatly should not Singapore Airlines... its a great airline, however I cant see a fit there, I can see ANZ and Qantas together, would probably be a pretty good set up, provided it was all worked out with no bickering between the two sides...

Orangputi

25th Aug 2008, 06:49

The original post said major airline merger. ANZ are small fry in the scheme of things. I think the meaning was BA UA for example.

Before I get swamped by Kiwis I am just stating facts nothing wrong with ANZ at all.

priapism

25th Aug 2008, 07:08

Garuda??????????

SEA For Now

25th Aug 2008, 08:15

MAS ???????

FairlieFlyer

25th Aug 2008, 09:11

What value would Qantas add to a larger airline they cant do themselves except a providing an intra-Oz domestic feeder service?

Average service, average product, slipping credibility, highly unionised & certainly not a regional market leader. (Sounds like a certain nationalised european airline no-one wants to buy?)

Other APAC airlines would be a better partner

EI-BUD

25th Aug 2008, 22:17

Geoffstar is not a major airline though, just a tiny [less than 10% of profit]
part of the "group":ugh:

Jetstar may be small when compared to Qantas but management at Qantas see jetstar as a much better return on investment in % terms. Management had said that Qantas and Jetstar would compete for investment and the best business propositions would get funds first. I dont think that Jetstar will be merged with Qantas. I would suggest that it will be an airline connected to Texas pacific, perhaps Continental, or failing that BA/AA/Iberia.

barrybeebone

30th Aug 2008, 04:15

The only reason Qantas would merge with Garuda is to tap into the fast growing Indoensian domestic market. Garuda has limited international flights and the EU ban wreaks havoc for insurance bills - not too mention garuda's chequered safety record which does not fit the Qantas brand. Not sure this is the right time for Qantas to look at Garuda. Note Indon Govt just announced that it will sell off 40% of Garuda - this is the third or fourth such announcement in the past few years...one day they will do it and with the election next year in Indonesia, my guess is that it will be postponed

MAS - The Malaysians are too nationalistic and will probably only sell a stake to a foreign airline if the current reform program fails

Air NZ - A good fit but comnpetition regulators won't allow it, unkless VB's current foray for trans tasman services is successful

Any US airline - also a good fit but doubt the yanks will not make any decision until next year for this, after elections.

sthaussiepilot

30th Aug 2008, 04:50

Personally I hope they dont merge with Garuda...

Air NZ (Possible, if as you mentioned, it wasnt blocked), Emriates (Unlikely, but would fit nicely), or even if they looked into cargo airlines like Atlas Air....?

Any thoughts on Qantas and Lufthansa?

barrybeebone

30th Aug 2008, 05:15

Lufthansa and Qantas? Not sure. One is star alliance and the other One World. If anything I reckon Lufthansa is trying to expand their airline group through smaller acquisitions. I note Lufthansa has been linked to garuda in the past.

sthaussiepilot

30th Aug 2008, 06:57

Ahhhh yes I forgot about that Lufthansa was in the Star Alliance...

Might be abit of a stupid question, but what is the Star Alliance? and One World Alliance,

I know its a group of Airlines "working together" (In a way)

but does it also mean they are mates? or something? (as mate-ly as airlines could be:E)

Perhaps Qantas should follow in absorbing smaller airlines... and kicking J*

I highly doubt they can compete with Tiger if Tiger continues expanding and succeeds... (but thats a different issue)

Varig? (Unlikely again, but any hope for Brazil?)
Lan? (In the one world, so perhaps a hope there?)
Continental? (Rather Large, and does fit with the US rumors..., but is supposed to be moving to Star Alliance, if not already... but is supposed to have a huge lawsuit about the Concorde Incident.... so I herd..)

sthaussiepilot

30th Aug 2008, 06:59

Also, Rather old news... but
Etihad and Virgin Blue form interline partnership - Low Cost Airline News (http://peanuts.aero/low_cost_airline_news/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5568/59&Itemid=59)

what happened there?

barrybeebone

30th Aug 2008, 07:44

My reference to alliances was more about the fact that even though there is no loyalty or obligation to buy within alliances, this hasn't stopped mergers in the past (BA/Iberia and tie up with AA) and also the idea of the alliances is that they compliment each other, ie they open up new markets so why wouldn't you first run the comb over an airline in your alliance? You already have a relationship with alliance partners!

Globaliser

1st Sep 2008, 08:32

Within an alliance, a lot of operational stuff is already aligned with your partners, so there's less work to be done if you merge with (or even work more closely with) a partner.

Also, the alliances are often said to be the precursors of the true global airlines that will be coming when nationalistic ownership restrictions are lifted. So merging with an alliance partner would simply be fulfilling the alliance's destiny.

Scram

1st Sep 2008, 16:01

What about AC?

AC have a great N. American sched as well as Europe, S America and Asia well covered........two good sized operations would fit well and compliment each others networks.......

Shamrogue

10th Sep 2008, 16:37

Hi Guys,

Curious question - Fuel Surcharges. On all flights they are obviously high. With Qantas on Round the worlds they are some 800.00 Euro. I'm wondering, does anyone suspect Qantas might reduce their charges in the near future?

Regards,

Shamrogue

PS. Sorry if I put this in the wrong spot.

BrissySparkyCoit

11th Sep 2008, 03:21

Perhaps the title needs to be a bit more informative like "Qantas fuel surcharges" rather than just "Qantas".

I'd be surprised if Qantas lowered them. Incidentally, has anyone calculated the actual revenue raised on a typical flight by the surcharge? For example, how much would the total sum of each pax surcharge come to for a SYD-MEL flight?

Then how much would the fuel load for this flight cost?

Globaliser

11th Sep 2008, 09:22

Back of the envelope: 767 with 250 pax capacity at 80% LF = 200 pax. AUD26 per pax per sector (incl GST) = AUD4727 net paid to the airline by fuel surcharge.

Now all we need is someone who knows how much fuel is burned on such a flight and how much it costs.

an-124

18th Dec 2008, 05:30

QF Press release
SYDNEY, 18 December 2008: Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) and British Airways Plc
(BA) are announcing that after detailed discussions about a potential merger of the
companies, talks have ended.
Despite the potential longer term benefits for Qantas and BA, the airlines have not been
able to come to an agreement over the key terms of the merger, at this time.
Qantas and BA will continue to work together on their joint business between Australia and
the UK and as part of the oneworld alliance.

K.Whyjelly

18th Dec 2008, 07:27

More news/link here....................................BA and Qantas merger talks collapse - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5363067.ece)

bracebrace!

18th Dec 2008, 12:32

The BA Jumbo in The Times article looks in bad shape. It's lost the whole of the upper deck, 2 engines and has sprouted some Airbus winglets..... :=

Muppets.

noosariver

19th Dec 2008, 07:51

What - no B & Q?

hamsco

19th Dec 2008, 23:25

Thanks goodness for that!

Riverboat

20th Dec 2008, 12:31

Sounds like a complete cock-up to me. A pathetic piece of negotiation, resulting in bad will all round. Really, heads should roll, but they won't, of course.

BA is on track to become a minor operator in the world, and sadly, it will probably get taken over by a foreign operator within 3 or 4 years.

racedo

20th Dec 2008, 15:20

Sounds like the Negotiation of desperation.

Everyone else is acquiring and merging so we must be seen to be doing it.

One has to ask what is BA's offer to customers and why would someone fly them other than anybody else

Crazy as it seems now but could EZY buy BA in 5 years time ?

Current market capitalisations are EZY - £1158M / BA - £1784M.

PUNM

3rd Feb 2009, 09:01

Published: FT February 3 2009 00:53 | Last updated: February 3 2009 00:53

Qantas, the Australian airline, has had its shares placed in a trading hold ahead of a “material announcement in relation to capital management initiatives”.

The company refused to elaborate although the airline’s board is understood to be meeting later on Tuesday to consider new capital management plans.

stormin norman

3rd Feb 2009, 09:08

"material announcement in relation to capital management initiatives”.

What the hell does that mean ?

davidjohnson6

3rd Feb 2009, 09:16

"material announcement in relation to capital management initiatives”.
What the hell does that mean ?

'material announcement' means something which existing shareholders really want to know about, and cannot be left to the smallprint.

'capital management initiative' means that they may wish to go to the stock market and raise some cash (we're talking over US$100mn) by selling some more shares - also known as a secondary public offering or a rights issue.

Taking this kind of action usually happens either when a company wants to buy up a major rival, or it reckons that it's in trouble and needs some spare cash for a few imminent rainy days

Domestos

17th Feb 2009, 00:02

Here is an interesting article that a mate of mine sent to me in an email today. It talks about how Qantas are cutting the SYD-PEK, MEL-PVG, and SYD-BOM flights. Looks like the company are reverting to doing BOM shuttles out of SIN again. The article also talks about how Jetstar are taking over operations in NZ instead of Jetconnect.

Qantas axes China flights (http://business.smh.com.au/business/qantas-axes-china-flights-20090217-89r1.html)

Very interesting times ahead!!!!!!!

Domestos

17th Feb 2009, 02:22

Could this be an excuse to draw more QCCA crew away from the 747 and onto the 380? Also could it be an excuse to wind down QAL? as their flying destinations are being taken over by 380....eg.QF 31 to LHR and QF11 to LAX?

blackguard

17th Feb 2009, 02:35

These flights are serviced by Airbus A330/200/300.Not 747s
It is way too early to start speculating about the demise of QAL.
It is just a common sense approach to re allocating capacity

twiggs

17th Feb 2009, 07:05

Domestos, you really do like to stir.
I suggest you don't speculate about things you have no knowledge of.
International crew have 1 LHR trip per day guaranteed in our EBA, it doesn't have to be any particular flight, there are 3 others to choose from.

Domestos

17th Feb 2009, 07:24

Sorry...I should have clarified my previous post....what I meant was it may be an excuse to shed more QAL crew (not the airline itself).

Speculation is exactly that....expressing an opinion on incomplete evidence. This is a forum for news and rumour....not CCN. I think I have the freedom to express speculation on this forum....within the rules of pprune.

I 'speculate' that this thread may have a short life......given previous threads involving certain individuals have tended to degenerate into vitriol. Contrast this with my other thread on QD (which does not involve certain individuals) which is going on 9 pages strong.

jhurditch

26th Jun 2009, 07:32

Just heard on 10 News...

Qantas to cancel all 787 orders to save 6 billion dollars.

Offchocks

26th Jun 2009, 07:40

Not according to the Qantas press release from this morning:

"Qantas announced today it had reached mutual agreement with Boeing to
defer the delivery of 15 B787-8 aircraft by four years and cancel orders for 15 B787-9s scheduled for
delivery in 2014/2015."

jhurditch

26th Jun 2009, 07:47

just checked that, journalistic research at its finest

Lauderdale

26th Jun 2009, 07:58

Australia's national carrier, the biggest customer for the
aircraft, still has firm orders for 35 787-9s and 15 787-8s
after the cancellation. It says that the delay was not a factor
in its decision.

"Qantas announced its original 787 order in December 2005,
and the operating environment for the world's airlines has
clearly changed dramatically since then," says the oneworld
alliance carrier's chief executive Alan Joyce.
The "prudent" decision will reduce capital expenditure by $3
billion and still allow Qantas and its low-cost subsidiary
Jetstar to "take advantage of growth opportunities and market
demands, both domestically and internationally", he adds.
Under the new delivery schedule, its first 15 aircraft, 787-9s
meant for Jetstar's international operations, will be delivered
from mid-2013. Jetstar was originally due to take delivery of
15 smaller 787-8s in mid-2010.

Another 15 787-8s will follow over the 12 months from the
fourth quarter of 2014 for Qantas' Australian domestic
operations, and allow it to retire its remaining Boeing 767-300
fleet.

The final deliveries of 20 787-9s for both Qantas and Jetstar
international operations will take place from the fourth
quarter of 2015 through to 2017. Qantas retains options for an
additional 50 aircraft.

Looks like topic closed. :ok:

racedo

26th Jun 2009, 08:11

Jetstar was originally due to take delivery of
15 smaller 787-8s in mid-2010.

They wouldn't have had to worry about that now as chances of getting them anyway before 2012 I think are small.

kbootb

26th Jun 2009, 09:28

And you researched it before posting it here as news? Nope. This site is part of the 'media' too, you know.

Forum area is rumour and news... it's a fine dividing line.;)

deSitter

26th Jun 2009, 09:52

Boeing announces delay to 787 first flight and deliveries (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/23/328709/boeing-announces-delay-to-787-first-flight-and-deliveries.html)

..static test fail.

-drl

deSitter

26th Jun 2009, 10:03

Fallout: Boeing 787 flight delay not even disclosed privately (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/172258.asp)

-drl

deSitter

26th Jun 2009, 10:13

Delaying the 787 first flight: Is Boeing's credibility shot? (http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/171994.asp)

Boeing are doing the right thing here.

-drl

Iver

26th Jun 2009, 12:46

So, can we assume Jetstar will be getting some additonal A330s in the next few years to cover for the delayed 787 deliveries? This is a GREAT market for A330 lessors nowadays...

ITman

26th Jun 2009, 13:32

The problem is well explained by Flight International at this web address.

Understanding the 787 structural reinforcement (Update1) - FlightBlogger - Aviation News, Commentary and Analysis (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/06/a-closer-look-understanding-th.html)

tjc

27th Jun 2009, 01:05

If there is any confusion, here is what QF are saying on their website.

The changes will see*:
* Qantas Group firm orders reduce from 65 to 50 aircraft, comprising 35 B787-9s and 15 B787-8s;
* the Group's first 15 aircraft - B787-9s for Jetstar's international operations - delivered from mid-2013, around three years later than planned. Jetstar was to take delivery of 15 smaller B787-8s in mid-2010;
* 15 B787-8s follow over the 12 months from the fourth quarter of 2014 for Qantas' Australian domestic operations and to retire the remaining Qantas B767-300 fleet;
* remaining deliveries, of 20 B787-9s for both Qantas and Jetstar international operations, take place from the fourth quarter of 2015 through to 2017; and
* Qantas retain the ability to purchase up to 50 additional aircraft.

Mr Joyce said the cancellation of 15 B787-9s would reduce the Group's aircraft capital expenditure by US$3 billion based on current list prices.
"Delaying delivery, and reducing overall B787 capacity, is prudent, while still enabling Qantas and Jetstar to take advantage of growth opportunities and market demands, both domestically and internationally," he said.
Details of the contractual agreement with Boeing remain confidential, but the settlement is materially in line with that previously recognised.

* delivery timeframes are based on current Boeing planning guidance and may be subject to change.

tsar3rd

27th Jun 2009, 14:08

I hear Boeing are going to rename the 787............the 7late7!!!!! :ok:

L-38

17th Dec 2010, 19:26

A380 - A mistake for Qantas? - Go to

http://www.bnet.com/blog/airline-business/qantas-engine-problems-mean-its-a380s-can-8217t-fly-to-the-us-big-problem/3048 (http://www.bnet.com/blog/airline-business/qantas-engine-problems-mean-its-a380s-can-8217t-fly-to-the-us-big-problem/3048)

Also

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/14/350901/high-thrust-trent-900s-limited-to-75-flight-cycles.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/12/14/350901/high-thrust-trent-900s-limited-to-75-flight-cycles.html)

skyhawkmatthew

17th Dec 2010, 19:46

JammedStab

18th Dec 2010, 01:20

I don't think it's in any way a 'mistake' - they bought an aircraft which, at the time, and for a couple of years after initial delivery, performed perfectly adequately on their long-range routes to LAX.

I think this issue really has nothing to do with Qantas and their choice to operate the A380: surely you could easily brand this as 'Airbus' mistake' having chosen to power the A380 with the Trent 900, considering this engine is supposed to scale to 80,000+ lbs of thrust (for the 380-900) but can't even supply 72,000 reliably?

Seems like the A380 and Airbus were the failure when you read this quote:

"The funny thing is that Qantas didn’t even want the more powerful engines in the first place. It opted for the same ones as Lufthansa and Singapore originally, but then Airbus announced the A380 would weigh 5 tons more than planned. That pushed Qantas to order the higher-thrust engines in order to make the airplane viable on the LA route."

Weight promises not kept. Should have gone for the 747-8.

skyhawkmatthew

18th Dec 2010, 03:51

Did the 748 exist back when QF ordered the A380?
Or was it still the very-much-paper 747-500 and -600 Stretch models?

alexpdx

18th Dec 2010, 07:47

Seems like the A380 and Airbus were the failure when you read this quote:

Seems like the best piece of spin I've read all day :rolleyes:

clareview

18th Dec 2010, 09:07

Do we really have to degenerate into this Boeing versus Airbus debate? Many new airliners experience teething problems in their early years (and of course the 787 is now 3 years late as well) and then move on to great success. To those suggesting Qantas shoudl have gone for the "new" 747 its not even in service yet - will it also have teething troubles?

ryanboxer

15th Feb 2011, 01:38

Just on nearmap.com and looking at Sydney Airport YSSY, notice on B2 to the right, qantas has an interesting aircraft.

Anyone shed some light?

MAN777

15th Feb 2011, 07:57

Mapping made up of thousands of images merged together, the aircraft has moved on consecutive images therefore loosing its wings.

Off Stand

15th Feb 2011, 10:42

Could it be this a/c that you saw?

Photos: Boeing 767-381F/ER Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas-Freight-(Express/Boeing-767-381F-ER/1865257/L/&sid=8a53ed99d82b197da21b504afb66098c)

Just a spotter

5th Jun 2012, 08:40

From ABC News, 5th June 2012

Qantas has shocked the share market with a massive profit downgrade of up to 90 per cent compared with last year's results.

Qantas shares crash on plunging profit outlook - Business (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-05/qantas-shareholders-rush-for-the-exits-as-profits-slide/4053554?section=business)

JAS