Qantas will be dead in 6 months [Archive] - Page 2

kotoyebe

3rd Jul 2009, 00:29

Funbags said,

They just cant seem to come to terms with the realisation that their little empire is crumbling around them

obviously, neither can some pilots...

Metro Man must be airline management here in Australia. He seems to be getting a hard on at the thought of Australians on third world conditions, while not offering any solutions.

What used to involve landing in a countries capital city and then catching a domestic flight onward has been replaced by, fly to a hub such as Dubai and catch a direct flight from there

Metro, so how does QF compete with this? Do we move Sydney to Dubai? Maybe if management actually managed and bought the right equipment at the right time, rather than focusing on screwing their empoyees, they might have had a fleeting chance at competing.

I notice that management salaries don't compete with those airlines you have mentioned, either.

Metro man

3rd Jul 2009, 01:20

Metro, so how does QF compete with this?

If I knew that I'd become a consultant and make millions selling QF the answer.
I don't know, that's what the board of directors get paid astronomical amounts to sort out.

Complaining and refusing to face facts definately won't work.

Crusty Demon

3rd Jul 2009, 02:18

Lowerlobe, get a life, you don't even work for Qantas. Yet you are the angriest of all flight attendant posters on here (even though you have retired).

What's wrong old chap?

ditch handle

3rd Jul 2009, 02:31

Of course what is being conveniently ignored by those here who bemoan the impost on Qantas for having to pay it's cabin crew a first world living wage [as opposed to the preferable, third world subsistence wage] is the fact that recent worldwide airline profitability pressure is an out of line event.

An event described as not having been seen since the 1930s.

Just prior to the global financial meltdown Qantas reported a record annual profit in excess of AUD $1 Billion.

All whilst having to pay it's staff first world, living wages.......:rolleyes:

_________

Oh Crusty,
please excuse lowerlobe. He just doesn't like hypocrites.......

Orangputi

3rd Jul 2009, 03:34

Sorry LowerLobe,

You are right I will now dump SQ with their exceptional service and young attentive flight attendants and go back to QF next I fly back to OZ, even if QF business is worse than SQ economy! After all I am full of it aparently.

To be quite honest you are full of it! If you cannot handle the truth dont respond, I know I am being brutally honest but thats the way us aussies are! As for Asian women that has nothing to do with it, I will repeat again the difference between QF and SQ service is this:

SQ beautiful attentive flight attendants excellent food and IFE ( along with great ground staff there to help).

QF boiler city with ladyboys, crap IFE and you would get better service down the local pub, at least the barmaid would smile and not look at you as if you are being a burden!

Orangputi

bulstrode

3rd Jul 2009, 04:05

Ageist sexist homophobic...go see a shrink about your relationship with your mom

Orangputi

3rd Jul 2009, 04:31

Thanks for your response Bulstrode,

I respect anyones opinion. However, I am yet to get a response on how QF inflight service is better than some of the carriers mentioned. Furthermore, a response about how the pax's are treated by the boilers and ladyboys.

Sorry it is a poor product isnt it. So instead of trying to analyse my state of mind I may be sexist to you but I know who I will be flying on along with a lot of my business class expat friends. The feminist nazi attitude doesnt help much either!

Captain.Que

3rd Jul 2009, 05:24

Employees are not responsible for the quality of the Qantas product.
They did not purchase the IFE.They are not responsible for the aging fleet.They are not responsible for the lack of manpower and resources.
They are apologists for the airline and have been apologizing for 10 years,
Try apologizing 100 times a day for service failures that occur through no fault of your own
After awhile it wears you down.
Copping abuse from customers accelerates the process.
Dont blame the employees for the product.
They are as much a victim of it as the customers

Taildragger67

3rd Jul 2009, 05:51

My 2c worth...

Flew on SQ Sydney to Singapore just last Saturday in business on the A380.

Reasonable business product, but quite frankly, a bit disappointing. I'll go through it.

Check-in: slooooooow to get the bags dropped off, despite having checked in online. BA FBD desks at Heathrow take about 1/10 the time this did.

J-class lounge in Sydney: dark, dingy & poky. Should've gone to the AirNZ one. It's a stretch to call it a 'lounge' - 'holding pen' might be more descriptive. The Ethiopian Airlines offering in Addis is better. 2/10 (and they only get that because they had Cascade in the fridge.)

Crew: I can look on the net (or even walk down the street on a warm day) for honeys, so I expect business class crew to be professional rather than cute. These guys were... ok. Nothing great, but ok and everything done pretty much by the book. 6/10

Seat: Comfy, but that width is truly silly. Watching the TV, I was so far from each armrest that I had to sit there with my arms crossed. Every time the bloke behind me (who slept from the go) rolled over, his feet would bump the little tunnel and I'd get vibrated. And having to get up to pull the bed out - just power-recline the thing like everyone else!

Then there was the fact that the ceiling lights were so glary, I could not actually see the action on the TV until I took my RM's off and squatted on the seat. Try that for 2 x 2hr movies, not so comfy. Total 2/10

Food: no choice of entrees - 1/10 by itself - but then consider that the 2 monster prawns on top of the single offering would've killed me by way of anaphylactic shock - 0/10. Barramundi was ok (not outstanding) - 7/10 but the dessert was nothing to write home about - 3/10. At no point during the online booking or check-in process was Book the Cook offered so I didn't get to have that - 0/10. Wine and beer selection disappointing - 3/10 although the espresso machine is a good idea (which they got from the Rat) - 6/10. Total 3/10

Oh yes then during a leg-stretch downstairs, I saw some triple-choc Cornettos being munched and I was given the third degree when I had the temerity to ask for one.

Self-serve bar & snacks: having recently experienced the EK A380 J-class bar, no comparison. Hopeless. Better off just not bothering. 1/10

Amentities: no kits to L/H business pax :eek:. You can't get away with that sort of caper on one of your major routes. -10/10

Bed: disappointing. They say it's wide, which it is in parts, but given the constrictive width of the foot 'tunnel' it's not like you can starfish as on the queen-size at home. Indeed effective width is only about 45cm or so. And the palaver to open the thing out... 4/10

So - generally, I'm glad the company was paying because it certainly didn't live up to the hype and I'd have felt very short-changed if I'd been paying. A reasonable product, yes, but other full-service carriers would have to actually be wilfully bad to undercook my experience by much. Frankly for a 7-hour trip, I would not have felt hard done by if the boss had put me in cattle. The main benefit for me was the baggage allowance. They're not that great.

White Pointer,

Just FYI mate, on Rat domestic there are lots of F/As who have come back from L/H because they've got kids and want to be home with the kids more often. So I don't know where you get the idea it's full of youngsters.

They may be 'boilers', but they are experienced enough to be able to do you a full hot service between Sydney and Melbourne and when I'm on the 06.15, that's what I need - not ditzy eye candy which I am realistic enough to know I'll never be able to touch anyway, which then proceeds to spill hot coffee over me at the first hint of turb.

.

Orangputi

3rd Jul 2009, 05:54

Dear Captain Que,

I agree and sympathise, however this does not help me the business traveller that your company is trying to get some loyalty out of.

I was engineer in this once great Airline and left on very good terms, but now it is just crap nothing more to say your comments confirm my point and I rest my case.

Short_Circuit

3rd Jul 2009, 05:55

Correct Captain.Que, we are all victims of the company wide "Buggery Campaign" which is designed to get rid of all the older experienced employees & substitute us with the new programmable android types that will do what they are told without question, accept the conditions they are given without question and take 3rd world wages to boot. :yuk:

Captain.Que

3rd Jul 2009, 06:10

Well we agree as to who is to blame.
So stop slinging off at the men and women employed by Qantas who are doing their best under difficult circumstances.
Reserve you "ladyboy' and "old boiler" comments for your mates at your local bar.
Next time you have a shave have a good look in the mirror.
Is Brad Pitt smiling back at you?
Do you really think that a young cute Sing Air Girl would find you appealing?
To her you are no more than a seat with a mouth in it.
Sing Air girls are very adept at disguising what they think.
Its a cultural nuance.
Australians are not adept at disguising what they think.
Particularly as far as fools are concerned.
Its a cultural nuance

Stationair8

3rd Jul 2009, 06:21

At least the Singaporean girls are easy on the eye and smile sweetly when you ask for a refill. Some of the Qantas girls need to have an attitude change, learn to smile and also drop a few kilos and some of the pretty boy's need to given a good feed of licorice and then retired to a stage show in King's Cross.

twiggs

3rd Jul 2009, 06:39

I respect anyones opinion. However, I am yet to get a response on how QF inflight service is better than some of the carriers mentioned. Furthermore, a response about how the pax's are treated by the boilers and ladyboys.

You really are kidding yourself Orangputi.

You will get no argument from me that SQ have more routes, more frequency to Aussie destinations, but that's about the end of the advantage, apart from girls wearing a kabaya.

The QF business product is as good if not better than SQ business.
(see Taildragger67 post #260 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/370189-qantas-will-dead-6-months-7.html#post5037756))
Your comment about SQ economy being as good as QF business is ridiculous.
Try it down the back in economy on a 747 on SQ and check out the the IFE that is almost 10 years.
There is no more leg room than anyone else and the food is nothing special.

You seem to have this problem with boilers and ladyboys.
Now if the boilers and ladyboys are providing bad service then your comment is valid, but I doubt it.

You cannot rate an airline and make a decision whether to fly with them based on the attractiveness of the crew.
If you do then you really are the loser.

I suspect you prefer SQ because the SQ crew don't stop serving you alcohol when you are pissed and start disturbing others in the cabin.
(This comment seems to apply to Stationair8 as well)

Bo777

3rd Jul 2009, 06:54

Orangutan (sorry my spellings not the best)

I was engineer in this once great Airline and left on very good terms
:hmm: Yeah right. You sound rather bitter.

Orangputi

3rd Jul 2009, 06:58

To Twiggs and Captain Que,

I accept you comments, but no one has accepted the challenge about service and who the average punter would prefer to fly with.

Sorry truth hurts again!

I know that Dixon and his morons stuffed things up but so do the feminist nazi brigade in the cabin.

Qantas would sink like a brick if it was not for the government protection it enjoys, again this is another hard truth!

Myself and station 8 represent the majority of business travellers in Asia. It is you guys and QF management who need to wake up not us we are the paying punters, dont you see that is all part of the problem you have no idea who pays your wages.

RedTBar

3rd Jul 2009, 07:00

I hear that funbags is up on manslaughter charges.3 people had cardiac arrest on 15th June when funbags made a post on a pilot thread.
80% of funbags posts are having a go at qf cabin crew but he reckons it's cabin crew throwing handbagsIt's always handbags at twenty paces in a LHCC thread
funbags if you want to see a handbag thrower look in the mirror mate.Also mate this thread is about Qantas and not a QF LH CC thread.
Heres a question.How many times does Orangputi mention "SQ beautiful attentive flight attendants".We all know why he lives in Asia and that means he really knows what ladyboys are like.I bet I know some men who couldn't get lucky in a brothel and they have to move OS to find someone.

Orangputi

3rd Jul 2009, 07:11

Thanks T-Bar,

With flight attendants like you onboard you only validate my position.

There is no answers here only an attempt to the blur the truth as it hurts!

Orangputi out and as no one understands or wants the truth us punters will search for the better alternative good luck with it all!

bulstrode

3rd Jul 2009, 07:18

Another Brad Pitt lookalike
Getover yourself you self absorbed misogynist.
What is it with ugly men and cute asian women?
Orang Puti and Staton8 you guys must have heads like dropped pies.
Ask these girls out on date and they would politely tell you to breath in three times and exhale twice

packrat

3rd Jul 2009, 07:23

Tits and Ass Airline...where you get a free lapdance by a gorgeous buxom hostie with every meal.
You guessed it...... OP is the number one frequent flyer.
You loser

4PW's

3rd Jul 2009, 08:17

White Man, if you are a retired engineer from Qantas who left on good terms, how is it that you're also a paying business class punter?

I would have thought your long tenure with the red rat would give you staff discount privileges.

Other posters are railing against old anger's vis-a-vis comments about old boilers and so on.

Fair go, Shags.

There were some, but as a punter on QF flights to Oz, glorious place that it is, I don't see ANY.

Actually, I'm with taildragger67.

That was a bloody good summary.

So what do you (fellow) expats have against the red rat, precisely?

I wish her well; real fair dinkum bloody well, n I'm sorry to see youse don't.

Worse, you try and disguise your contempt with hyperbole.

Whatever.

funbags

3rd Jul 2009, 08:48

All the average punter wants is good service, the occasional smile, no attitude, and to be served by someone who is not old enough to be their grandfather/mother. Oh, and it helps if the crew member sees their job as a service orientated one, and not as a free ticket to their next shopping destination.

Sadly, besides the LHR/AKL/QCCA crew, this is nothing but a pipe dream in Qantas LHCC. :{

Bring on the QCCA crew, bring em on!

Taildragger67

3rd Jul 2009, 08:58

Sorry Funbags, let me get this straight - you're saying the new-contract QF CC are the good ones? (as in, professional) You're saying they see it as a long-term career?

Like, the LHR basers who give the term 'biscuit-thrower' a whole new meaning?

ditch handle

3rd Jul 2009, 09:01

A review of funbag's posting history is illustrative of the obsessive/compulsive theme that drives this bitter and twisted individual.

HDSD

3rd Jul 2009, 09:13

Can I put it to you all that the majority of Australians would much rather Qantas cabin crew over a “Singapore Girl” any day. Do not forget that young Australian are much more patriotic than previous generations. They would prefer somewhat raw service delivered by Australians. You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise. The young folk aren’t interested in a perv at the crew... come on :ugh: :rolleyes:

rudderless1

3rd Jul 2009, 10:08

Qatar Airways don't need to make a profit with all their reserves of natural gas, as long as its big and prestigious let the money burn.
So we should work for free? :rolleyes:

West African saying - "He who tells the truth is not well liked." What an ironic comment "quoted" from such safe and democratic country with all the ideals you may seek?

Why is it we must pay Australian workers less to compete globally and manager more?

QF management errors have totalled billions over recent years, not including the failed APA sale which would have bankrupted QF and harmed 38000 jobs, now a fact.

The only reason Qf survives against the will of poor leadership of its past is its people.

It still remains the best and safest airline in both Australia and possibly most parts of the world after all this, just shows how far above it was and how efficient it still is, compared to others, and all with full terms and conditions.

It would be far more profitable when the staff are fully engaged and management pull their heads in and realise what really matter to make an airline profitable.

A clue,
Its not stupid exec remuneration!
Its not poor working conditions!
Its not poor wages!
Its not hot chicks!

Lead well, manage well, and respect everyone. Piss of the psychopaths and greedy pricks:ugh:.

lowerlobe

3rd Jul 2009, 11:27

I have to laugh at Funbags posts.His posts contain nothing constructive and are nothing more than meddling,abusive posts yet at the same time continually accusing Cabin Crew of doing the same......

Actually,his post on pilot related issues are as rare as the appearance of Halley's comet .....

This thread though is about Qantas and it's ability to exist.

Nunc

3rd Jul 2009, 11:58

How old is this post?:ooh:

Kangaroo Court

3rd Jul 2009, 21:02

Every time I've flown Qantas, it's been perfectly fine. I've always enjoyed the service and the staff.

Good luck to all, hope you can make things even better by improving your fleet age and developing new routes.

Thread lock...long overdue!

Falling Leaf

3rd Jul 2009, 22:59

Please, instead of all this bitter infighting, why don't we all realise that the Airline industry is an industry in decline, designed to operate with oil under $50 bbl.

Which airline with the present price of oil and the GFC is doing well? The only ones that will survive are those with a low labour cost base, because the piece of pie spent on oil is getting bigger, so the piece spent on staff will have to get smaller - or airline goes out of business. Plus the pie gets smaller, as we all take home less pay, and spend more of it on food and petrol, power & rates, and not airline tickets and holidays. Simple.

I'm not defending QF management decisions, know nothing about them. Never worked in the QF group, never applied either. Just a general observation on the global industry.Expect more pressure on T&C by all airline management in order to survive - everywhere.:{

ditch handle

3rd Jul 2009, 23:13

Falling Leaf,

can you therefore explain [away:rolleyes:] the annual AUD $1 Billion profit made by Qantas prior to the global financial crisis?

Le 3rd Homme

3rd Jul 2009, 23:38

Zapatas Blood

4th Jul 2009, 00:07

QF will always be around but the staff are going to see massive change in order to survive.

Expensive oil is here to stay and the current economic problems are just the beginning.

Standby for much worse.

And yes, QF is in reasonable shape compared to many competitors.

porch monkey

4th Jul 2009, 05:01

Yes, we all know everything costs more. So tell me, how come the ticket prices cost less? The sooner all airlines wake up that you can't sell tickets for less than they cost the better off we'll all be.

Falling Leaf

4th Jul 2009, 05:43

For a variety of reasons Qantas will never die nor be allowed to die.
It employs 36000 people
The ancilliary industries its supports is most likely 10 times that.
The massive void it would create domestically and internationally would be impossible to fill in the short term(2 years).
Politically for the incumbent government its survival would be mandatory.

Ahh, the 'Too big to fail' argument. I think they said the same about GM and Chrysler...

OK, Qantas won't be allowed to die. In an earlier post I predict the airline being re-nationalised instead. If the Govt has to spend the billions, the taxpayer will want something for their investment.

But if you think QF will look anything like QF now, you will be joining those commentators who think that GM and Chrysler haven't changed. The names may have survived, but GM and Chrysler are now hollow shells of their former selves in order to exist in the new commercial and economical environment.

can you therefore explain [away:rolleyes:] the annual AUD $1 Billion profit made by Qantas prior to the global financial crisis?

Without researching the exact oil price leading up to that profit, and what was sold off within QF to get that sort of a number, I would say oil below $50 bbl for an extended period of time, and of course, prior to the GFC. By the way, considering the size of QF, what is 1 Billion profit in terms of a return on investment? Would be interested to know.

The point of my post was not how profitable the airline industry was in the past, but more to say that in the present environment i.e. lack of cheap credit and lack of cheap oil, the airline industry is now in decline, and the vitrolic attacks on these forums seems to reflect the increasing pressure that those working in this industry are experiencing.

For what its worth, since the advent of commercial aviation, airlines in total have lost more money then they have ever earnt. Aviation may be a profitable industry, but the airline segment of the industry never has been. Want to make money in aviation, then run an airport, a catering company, ground handling company etc.

QF will always be around but the staff are going to see massive change in order to survive.

Expensive oil is here to stay and the current economic problems are just the beginning.

Standby for much worse.

Agree.:ok:

rudderless1

4th Jul 2009, 06:24

Just cause oil goes up, or anything else, does not mean people working for an airline can afford to work for less or free to off set it. They have bills that need to be paid and that also increase.
In fact they would need to inflate their wages just like people in any other industry. If their wages/remuneration cannot keep pace, I guess they will leave and work elsewhere.
If passengers do not wish to pay what it costs to fly, I don't think there are enough charitable souls out there that love working for an airline that much, to offer their services at a discount perpetually, just cause the industry isn't profitable.

If the industry is not viable it will shrink or close, staff attrition will increase, but the fact remains, if they need you (supply vs demand) they have to pay the market rate.

If oil is a problem aviation won't be the only ones changing. I suggest we will all change as we need when we need to as demand dictates.

Til then my wage will be proportional to the market demand, not some twit in mgt who sells some trumped up spin to pump his bonus! :)

Whilst it costs more for a cab to the airport or to park there for the day, then it does for a ticket from Sydney to Melbourne, we aint got too much to worry about.

:ok:

Animalclub

4th Jul 2009, 07:00

The airline that passengers choose to fly with is not based on Cabin Service or air fares alone as a lot of posters on this thread believe. Look at the picture as a whole.

Look at...
-Routes the airline operates
-Price of fares
-Quality of service on the ground and in the air
-Pressure applied to pax by Travel Agent or the person/organisation paying the bill
-Terms of any contracts an organisation gains that stipulates carriers to be used
-Added benefits to the passenger (rather than his/her organisation)

There's a whole host of things to be considered... notwithstanding that everyone can improve their performance I don't care how good one is.

Calm down please.

airtags

4th Jul 2009, 07:26

agree -but this thread is really about the bigger picture.

- tracking pax movements (all airlines int & domestic) shows an aggregate increase, as does the number of operators and routes flown.

However..... overlaying yeilds, the economic logic goes south with an average 60% reduction (12 month mvt in std J & Y). To summarise, more poeple are flying with more operators to more places but are generating far less profit.

The reality of this is that the effects of rising oil prices ( although let's not all cry as a few hedged profitably) and the GFC have been accelerated by the opening up of the market, to (sometimes very undercapitalised) entities. These entities include those who are/were reliant on various concessions from State & Fed govts as well as so called "start up" dispensations and exemptions or the 'panama flag' of a foreign AOC.

These players, together with the established operators also have sought to take advantage of the adverse economic conditions to disproportionately drive down working T&C's.

For all pilots, CC and anyone working in aviation, the challenge is to sensibly provide an IR partnership that seeks to generate profits by doing other than just slashing pay & conditions as a knee jerk reaction to today's all ords index (or to preserve a CEO's bonus.)

At the same time we all need to seek greater accountability from government in relation to granting further access to Australian markets and in the granting of dispensations and exemptions.

Equally, airlines have to be placed under more scrutiny in relation to 'stat building stunts' like $39 fares.

QF's NAV & capitalisation shows that red rat tails will be perenials at the gates, albeit with a few more orange stars in between.

Reporting season ahead.

The Professor

4th Jul 2009, 08:27

"The ancilliary industries its supports is most likely 10 times that."

This is true. But these industries would be supported by the airline that steps in to fill the shoes vacated by QF. Possibly a foreign carrier or a few foreign carriers. The curtailing of associated business when Ansett ceased operations was brief and finite. The service industry formally aligned with Ansett soon sprang back into life supporting Virgin Blue.

"The sooner all airlines wake up that you can't sell tickets for less than they cost the better off we'll all be."

It has been said before, but I will repeat it never the less. Airlines have little ability to control both the number of seats available and the price for which those seats are sold. If you advocate the raising of airfares, you must also be prepared to see a contraction in capacity, as there is very little elasticity in the business. Especially now.

"Just cause oil goes up, or anything else, does not mean people working for an airline can afford to work for less or free to off set it"

The market has little interest in your spending habits and whether or not you can afford to work for less.

"Til then my wage will be proportional to the market demand"

Not if you work for an incumbent carrier.

lowerlobe

4th Jul 2009, 08:27

why don't we all realise that the Airline industry is an industry in decline, designed to operate with oil under $50 bbl.
I could not disagree more....

Since the advent of the 747 aircraft airfares have been getting cheaper and cheaper....

Perhaps the philosophy of a mega aircraft such as the A 380 is a bad one in todays market and fuel prices.It might be that the airlines will go back to aircraft with smaller pax loads.The airfares will be more expensive such as they were back in the 60's and early 70's but airlines will survive.

Falling Leaf

4th Jul 2009, 10:19

I could not disagree more....

Since the advent of the 747 aircraft airfares have been getting cheaper and cheaper....

Ummm, since the advent of the B-747 (first commercial flight 1970), to the late 90's, oil was pretty much under $25 bbl, with the exception of the oil crises of the 70's.

Oil has only been above $50 bbl since 2005, dipping earlier this year during the GFC to the low $30's.

So high oil prices (for arguments sake, above $50 bbl) has only been in the last 4 years. Not enough to change the long-term decline in ticket prices, which were more the result of de-regulation, A scales being replaced by B scales etc. Some airlines did introduce fuel surcharges though... to not affect the low fare price.

Maybe I should have been clearer, and said the Airline Industry is now (from 2005) in decline...

I can't really see anything in your post which shows that you disagree with my contention that Airlines are in decline.

Bad Hat Harry

4th Jul 2009, 10:54

Are airlines declining in number and/or profitablity.?
The number of airlines will decline over time as the inefficient leave the market.
Airline profitablity runs in cycles.Qantas is just coming off a very very profitable period.As the world economy recovers so will airline bottom lines.
The world is full of travellers.At present there is pent up demand.
Give it 12 months and you wont be able to get a seat on an aircraft and yields will improve.
Its all been seen before.
We`ve heard the doomsayers before.
Running aircraft like the A380 is a mistake.They require a flat airline cycle where airlines are continually in profit.In short they provide too much capacity.
If larger aircraft was a good idea why didnt Boeing agree?
Boeing seems to have got it right for the last 50 years.
Smaller aircraft with longer range seem more appropriate.
Like with most of these discussions time will provide the answer

hewlett

4th Jul 2009, 11:28

"Want to make money in aviation, then run an airport, a catering company, ground handling company etc."

A sound statement.Why then does QF hand customer airline ground handling contracts to the competition.Citing low margins as the reason may be good cause to explore ways to increase those margins,however,despite efforts by staff to lower those costs eg smaller gangs handling multiple aircraft simultaneously, contracts continue to be lost.The wages of the ramp workers are not that great and considering they are turning a/c around with half the staff of the opposition that only leaves the cost of their support network ie management, to consider.
Shareholders should be questioning the loss of this income stream.
One senior manager was heard to state that $40 mil of income to engineering from other operators through the line maintenance dept was, in the big scheme of things a drop in the bucket.So now QF line maint has lost the majority of that income and is now overstaffed yet still no decision on the redundancies, agreed to at a time when understaffing was a problem.WTF!

Angle of Attack

4th Jul 2009, 13:08

Did Qantas Died?

Did The Professor Died?

:ugh:

lol!

Metro man

4th Jul 2009, 13:40

Why then does QF hand customer airline ground handling contracts to the competition.

Because it's cheaper ? Staff putting on a QANTAS uniform have high expectations of terms and conditions and would want the same union working practices as everyone else.

Outsourced companies compete for contracts and have to be cheaper and more efficient if they want to keep them. If you're competing for a renewal of your cleaning contract, your price had better be less than the five or six others tendering. There's probably a clause allowing instant termination in the event of non performance as well. Union problems or strikes are not the airlines concern.

If you're an airline manager and that's the way your competitors are moving you'd better follow or watch them undercutting you with a lower cost base.

IF things got to the stage were a government bail out was needed you can be sure there will be strings attached. Cost cutting will be first on the list.

argusmoon

5th Jul 2009, 00:07

Qantas has been cost cutting for 10 years.
It has reduced its wages bill by 22% over the last 7 years.
Ground handling was/is making a profit..just not enough.
Your(Metro Man) perception of the Qantas workforce appears to be jaundiced at best.
Some of what you say was relevant ...20 years ago.
The workforce today is much more pragmatic.
Stop reading the Readers Digest and find the real facts

Stationair8

5th Jul 2009, 00:50

Obviuos my comments struck a raw nerve with a couple of Qantas Galley Hags or Fags. Firstly no I don't look like Bradd Pitt and no desire to look lke him, no I don't drink alcohol on flights, the Singaporean girls are a lot more pleasant to look at and they also treat the customer with respect and seeing I am paying that's what I expect. Qantas catering is substandard crapp basically, Qlink/Eastern food is a disgrace you pay top dollar on the Dash8 and get a muffin and a lukewarm coffee if you are lucky, but don't ask for a refill!
In January 2007 I was checking in at Melbourne and I had printed of a boarding pass at home, but joined the wrong line and soon found a Qantas employee screaming at me for being in the wrong line. I politely remarked to the rude person that if I wanted to be screamed at and shouted at in that manner I would join the army. When I finally got to the Checkin desk, I asked to speak to a supervisor or manager in relation to this incident but after waiting for 30 minutes, no one could find one. But during the same time I watched this staff member intimidate and reduce and old couple to tears for being in the wrong line and not having a boarding pass.
Hardly good for repeat business.
Another time my nav bag was to big to be carried on as cabin luggage, so the Qlink staff said it would go in the hold and come off as priority baggage in Melbourne, but I couldn't pick it up on disembarkation for 101 reasons but it would be in the baggage claim area within 15 minutes. An hour later an waiting to board another flight no bag, and again no one could give me any assistance, the supervisor was very busy avoiding me and the junior was always on his mobile. Finally one hour and twenty minutes later my bag turned up!
The $500 short notice airfare to Adelaide from Melbourne, nice flight in the A330 on time arrival but no catering provided to the punters in the middle of the aircraft for some reason.
There are many good loyal Qantas employees that work hard and have QF blood in their viens, but also a large number including managers that like to rort the system, treat the customers like dirt, don't look outside the square and see that QF does have a lot of lean mean competitors today.

ditch handle

5th Jul 2009, 01:04

I'm personally pleased that the Les Pattersons of this world only fly on Asian carriers.

lowerlobe

5th Jul 2009, 01:08

Falling Leaf...So this is all about the price of oil is it?????

Why then was the price of airfares in comparison to the average wage so much higher before the advent of the 747?

The airlines got on the band wagon and trued to do the aviation equivalent of bulk billing....As I said this is not about the price of oil but the way in which airlines and ours in particular are structured....

It is an inverted pyramid and needs and enema to turn it upside down to where there are more indians than chiefs....

Did the airlines make a profit when there were far less people flying and airfares were higher......YES and the price of oil was much lower....instead of using aircraft that are so big they have their own postcode maybe it's time to have smaller aircraft and higher fares.....

It looks like Stationair8 is the type of passenger that likes to be fussed over and fantasize about some young asian girl.....nothing more needs to be said.

Stationair8

5th Jul 2009, 01:51

Always nice to be greeted with a smile rather than be grunted at.

ampclamp

5th Jul 2009, 02:09

I'm personally pleased that the Les Pattersons of this world only fly on Asian carriers.

Now that is funny.:ok:

twiggs

5th Jul 2009, 02:26

Stationair8,
I too have seen some of the worst examples of customer service exhibited by check-in staff.

Your comments about cabin crew however, refer mostly to how, in your eyes, SQ girls look better than QF guys and girls.
You really are a loser, although not as big a one as orangputi.

Incidently, as a customer, you pay for service not respect.
Respect you will have to earn.

Stationair8

5th Jul 2009, 03:05

In the last ten years I have paxed with Ansett, Kendalls, Qantas domestic and international, Jetstar, Virgin Blue, AirNorth, National Jet, Eastern, Sunstate, Southern Australian, Impulse, Rex, Singapore, Cathay and KLM.

Singapore is a far superior product to anything that Qantas offers, and that includes from the start of checking in to the way your are looked after inflight.

As far as domestic fllights go AirNorth and National Jet staff seem to understand the concept of looking after the customer and that wins them repeat business, and they go out of their way to provide a good service.

Plenty of companies in Australia have failed over the years, through not giving a stuff about the customer and concentrating on management's bonuses etc.

If I was as good looking as Sir Les, I would be very happy.

kotoyebe

5th Jul 2009, 03:09

Singapore is a far superior product to anything that Qantas offers, and that includes from the start of checking in to the way your are looked after inflight.

Until recently, at least in Sydney, QF and their staff were checking you in to your highly prized SQ flights.....

Tassie Devil

5th Jul 2009, 03:52

Is it tru that SQ have a max BMI for their cabin crew, once exceded they are stood down?

jungle juice

5th Jul 2009, 06:07

It's my experience that you get what you dish out.

If stationair8 feels as though he is being grunted and scowled at and if he describes the crews as fags and hags then it's because thats the way he treats the staff and so it's no wonder he is treated like that.If he behaves like that to staff and makes no secret that he prefers to look at Asian women then it's no wonder.
Plenty of companies in Australia have failed over the yearsSo no other companies in other counties have gone broke.

It looks like we have a guy here who by his own admission is not as good looking as Sir Les and thats a worry.I would think that he could not get a job with QF or a woman in Australia and is more than a little bitter about it.If he likes being pampered it's no wonder he likes to live in Asia because he likes a happy ending:E and he can't get that in Australia.

packrat

5th Jul 2009, 09:16

The focus has been on costs and bonuses.
It should be on the customer.
Its been all about leveraging the brand.
In so doing they have trashed it.
They have dropped the ball and no one knows where it is.
Some of the comments....those not targeting the employees...are right.
The current Qantas product is ****e

Falling Leaf

5th Jul 2009, 09:40

Falling Leaf...So this is all about the price of oil is it?????

Yes. As is, in essence, the whole GFC. The subprime crisis was in part caused by rising petrol prices pushing already marginal borrowers into defaulting on their mortgages. Just enough to topple an over-leveraged financial industry that was little more then a credit bubble house of cards.

Why then was the price of airfares in comparison to the average wage so much higher before the advent of the 747?

No competition (most airlines were national airlines), pre-deregulation, less fuel efficient aircraft, higher T&C for all staff (hence the golden age of being an airline pilot), little to no outsourcing, stronger unions etc.

I know that even 10 years ago you could pay $1000 for a SYD-BNE ticket with Ansett. Airfares are one of the only products that have not increased in even inflation adjusted dollars.

Did the airlines make a profit when there were far less people flying and airfares were higher......YES and the price of oil was much lower....instead of using aircraft that are so big they have their own postcode maybe it's time to have smaller aircraft and higher fares.....

Yes, completely agree. And using your logic, with a higher oil price, perhaps we need even smaller aircraft and higher ticket prices!

Metro man

5th Jul 2009, 09:54

Is it tru that SQ have a max BMI for their cabin crew, once exceded they are stood down?

Yes, they must be able to fit into the uniform and SQ don't do + sizes. Also max age of thirty five. Good complexion and a high standard of grooming are required. Highly selective recruitment process. We have some ex SQ cabin crew and the rules are unbelievably strict. Very customer focused and disciplined.

MELKBQF

5th Jul 2009, 10:52

Is stuffed, narrow and miserable part of the plan for the Qantas Cityflyer fleet? - Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2009/07/05/is-stuffed-narrow-and-miserable-part-of-the-plan-for-the-qantas-cityflyer-fleet/)

emu787

5th Jul 2009, 11:17

In the last ten years I have flown regularly....qantas....lufthansa....singapore...thai....anse tt...kendell...impulse....american...united...flightwest...s kywest...tiger international...ryanair...emirates...malaysian...silkair...b ritish airways...cathay pacific...cebu pacific....philippineair...china southern...garuda indonesia....air north....easterns(had a cockcroach in my bun cabin attendant didnt want to know about it)....nationaljet....

well all I can tell you is one day a QF747 Capt announced that we are in a new level of service as we have now got seat back video's....Singapore had already had them for 8-10 years......its plane and simple....get a better attitude of the people at the coal face...the cabin crew...the check-in staff.... and of course the money men behind the scenes......they are the people who the punter see....or are affected by.

QF can survive but they had better get cracking...after all it is just another SERVICE industry...no service...no customers!!!!!
no different to staying at a nice hotel...or a bad one really!!

or is it the case of QF = Quit Flying

mrpaxing

5th Jul 2009, 11:26

which outback dunny have you been hiding in???????
QF had inseat videos for many years now:ugh:

emu787

5th Jul 2009, 11:36

it was a cosmetic retrofit to try and keep up with the worlds best "asian airlines" cabin service...new aircraft...service...plane simple service with a smile at the same price or often LESS...a little tad late I would have thought but then again australia is the worlds biggest island....dreamtime...matey:=:=

lowerlobe

5th Jul 2009, 21:10

Falling Leaf...So this is all about the price of oil is it?????
Yes.
This is where your argument falls down as it does with all the other doomsday exponents...

Was the price of oil higher than $50 a barrel in the 50's and 60's ?????

You might not have noticed that the price of everything has risen as it does over time.The price of steel,eggs,cabbages,milk,newspapers etc..the list goes on.

However,if that happens the airlines increase the price of a ticket....as I said then all you do is have smaller aircraft and less pax and higher ticket prices.There will always be people with money that will want to fly.

Emu787....No argument from me at all with IFE....they have to lift their game and spend money where it counts.Not with a $10 million dollar waste of money called the center of excellence.....

They still have IFE probs with the 400 and what have they done about it???:ugh:

mrpaxing

5th Jul 2009, 23:35

once again you blure the facts. ALL 747 of any airline were retrofittet with the IFE (unless they came new online and had the IFE fitted, eg QF 747 ER). the difference is the manufacturer. SQ Kris system used to have the same failure rate as the rockwell system. however they have been able to get better fixes then the rockwell system. all new QF a/c (A333/332 except domestic) were fitted with the rockwell system(which still plays up):=.

stubby jumbo

5th Jul 2009, 23:46

.......emu -you make quite a few valid points.

The QF spin machine works in all forms of the media- advertising, public announcements, AGM's, Qantas News etc.

Its all spun to bluff the punters into changing their perspective ( which I guess is whats commonly referred to as Marketing-:ugh:)

Take the Qantas News-have a look at the last 3-4 issues and take a close look at the front page pic's-its all "Executives" sitting around looking like they've just come out of a funeral.

Lighten up a bit. We've been through the "Chicken Little" routine long enough under Darth. Sure we're in the crapper. BUT the only way out is to give people a sense of confidence and direction NOT morose posturing from people who are supposedly LEADERS.

As for the IFE. I just returned from LAX ( now referred to as the JQ express-due to the number of first time punters on $900 fares !-but thats another topic on its own) Anyway, on BOTH SECTORS -the IFE shat itself.
We don't even bother apologising any more. And the sad truth is the punters don't really care-they expect it to fail -infact if it works for 13 hours its called a BONUS !

Qantas are really kidding themselves.

Oh woe is me-Delta are on the route. Our once cosy duopoly is now trashed-our profits are going to be reduced.

HELLO WAKE UP YOU CLOWNS-its called competition. If you are r-e-a-l-l-y serious about EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE not just the spin in thinking people are getting it-you need to DELIVER IT !

That means- delivering an exceptional product -not some Rockpool/Woolies inspired mush that passes off for airline food, clean serviceable toilets, an IFE that actually works ( not one that limps and weezes along) AND for the risk of being accused of heresy improved customer service

So there you have it-rant over.

I'm still backing AJ ( he is streets ahead of GD-so far) however, he can't fall back into the old ways of spin, deceit, bullying and managing both the customers and staff by fear.

sj

ampan

6th Jul 2009, 01:38

Travel by air is far too cheap. SYD-LHR return for 3 weeks pay on the average salary? Do any of these passengers really understand what is involved in getting this done?

RedTBar

6th Jul 2009, 02:05

Travel by air is far too cheap. SYD-LHR return for 3 weeks pay on the average salary?
ampan,you're right but it depends on what wage you're talking about.This couldn't be a worse time to introduce a commercial aircraft like the dugong.Unless it's filling up with freight to offset the dwindling passenger numbers it's not a good time for it.

If we are talking about QF and others against the Asian carriers.There will always be people (and notice they are usually men) who want to fly because they like to drool over Asian women and think they are in with half a chance.JJ is right because it doesn't matter how good the IFE is with QF, all they'll be dreaming of is a flight with a happy ending.I have 2 words for them.

AS IF.

Falling Leaf

6th Jul 2009, 06:52

Lowerlobe, once again, I can't really see where you disagree with my generic observation that increasing oil prices results in the decline of the airlines, both in size and profitability.

This is where your argument falls down as it does with all the other doomsday exponents...

Was the price of oil higher than $50 a barrel in the 50's and 60's ?????

The answer, as you know, is NO. See the following link:

Historical Crude Oil Prices Table (http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp)

To summarise, the highest inflation adjusted price in the 50's was $24.42. In the 60's it was $20.88. So oil is significantly more expensive today then it has been for the majority of the history of commercial aviation. And yes, I know tickets are cheaper now, but as I have stated before that is a result of de-regulation, privatisation, decrease in T&C and increased competition etc.

You might not have noticed that the price of everything has risen as it does over time.The price of steel,eggs,cabbages,milk,newspapers etc..the list goes on.

Well actually, along with everyone else who is not yet decomposing, I have noticed. I will go further and ask, are you aware that the price of all these items is also significantly effected (on top of inflation) by the oil price, as oil is a major input into all sectors of the economy, particularly food production and farming techniques.

However,if that happens the airlines increase the price of a ticket....

Were it so easy. However, as the Professor has stated, there is very little price elasticity in the modern airline marketplace. Increase ticket prices a little, and there is a disproportionate decrease in demand. That is why the airlines only passed through a very small percentage of the high oil prices last year onto the ticket price.

as I said then all you do is have smaller aircraft and less pax and higher ticket prices.

Elegant solution, and one I agree with. However, implement that solution at a current legacy carrier (or even a LCC), which has large aircraft and low ticket prices, and tell me whether the result will feel like 'decline' to that airlines staff and shareholders?

There will always be people with money that will want to fly.

Yes, though the number that will be able to afford to fly must decrease.

To expand on my argument. The price of kerosene increasing will hurt the airlines bottom line, but with hedging and price fluctuations, airlines can absorb the extra costs and survive, but they will need to cut costs in other areas (T&C the next biggest cost on the books).

But what will really hurt the airlines is the corresponding fall in GDP as oil increases. All the Recessions in the postwar era, with the exception of the dot.com bubble bursting, were the result of a spike in oil prices.

Oil goes up, GDP contracts, demand contracts, capacity must be reduced.

Feels like decline to me.:ok:

Butterfield8

6th Jul 2009, 07:07

While the price of oil is a factor in any economic cycle it is only one factor.
The price of oil was very high 18 months ago.Aircraft were full and the Australian economy was in overdrive.Now the price has fallen the economy is still ok.
The world does not come to a standstill if the price of oil goes up.The other factors include debt,interest rates and the unemployment rate.Price is determined by demand-China and India provided the catalyst
If wages keep pace with the increase in oil prices and everybody has a job the economy continues to chug along.
When you have very large aircraft that need to be filled then you have problems in a downturn.
Smaller aircraft provide greater flexibility in all economic weather.
Qantas has made some monumental blunders.
The Tripler should have been bought.
The fleet should not have been allowed to age as it has.
Bio Fuels are on the way
Older aircraft are less fuel efficient and when the price of oil goes up it hurts more when the fleet is older.
Qantas will survive but the short termism needs to go.
The Qantas "boys club" has been decimated and now the real work begins

Falling Leaf

6th Jul 2009, 08:10

My only response to the above post is this:

it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it - Upton Sinclair
:ok:

Butterfield8

6th Jul 2009, 08:16

Price is a function of demand.
Whats the point of oil at $170 a barrel if no ones going to buy it?

kotoyebe

6th Jul 2009, 08:35

To expand on my argument. The price of kerosene increasing will hurt the airlines bottom line, but with hedging and price fluctuations, airlines can absorb the extra costs and survive, but they will need to cut costs in other areas (T&C the next biggest cost on the books).

Wow. More airline management proteges. Gee, that's a really sustainable management practice. "OK Mr Airline CEO, I'll keep on cutting my wages for you while oil keeps going up, so that you can keep selling your tickets for $29. No problems...I'll even pay YOU to work at your airline."

And of course, oil prices only effect the airline industry...not. If oil continues like it was before the GFC, then it won't only be airline managers trying to "cut costs" We'll have plenty more to worry about.

And as Butterfield says, price is partly a function of demand...obviously. Personally, I don't care if oil goes to $1000 a barrel. I won't be the only person scratching my head and wondering where my job went!

It will also bring alternatives into the market, and there are alternatives. The market has a way of sorting these things out...as it did in the previous oil price spikes.

rudderless1

6th Jul 2009, 08:51

Were it so easy. However, as the Professor has stated, there is very little price elasticity in the modern airline marketplace. Increase ticket prices a little, and there is a disproportionate decrease in demand. That is why the airlines only passed through a very small percentage of the high oil prices last year onto the ticket price.

Passed on a verysmall percentage, you must be kidding Falling Leaf, QF made money out of rising oil costs. It was called the "fuel surcharge". That was the best con in ticket pricing. The "surcharge" often paid more than the cost of fuel for the flight then of course you still have the fuel allocation in the ticket itself.
Correct me where wrong but the fuel surcharge corresponded with the years of record profit and rising oil costs.:suspect:

Maybe mgt should be a bit more proactive about business building for the long term not bonus building for the short term. Staff are usually ineffectively utilised or facilitated costing far more losses like 20 -40% than their meagre pay rises of 3 or 4%.

But how can you manage a business when you have no idea what it is or what the staff do and your not interested in listening to them?

Falling Leaf your Autumn has come, time to fly with the wind.

All the best:ok:

lowerlobe

6th Jul 2009, 08:53

it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it - Upton Sinclair
Falling Leaf....Google is a wonderful tool isn't it?

The world has a surfeit of people who believe that they are of a higher intelligence than is apparent to others.....

Capt Kremin

6th Jul 2009, 09:21

Don't forget, by definition, half of all the people you meet are below average intelligence!

Falling Leaf

6th Jul 2009, 10:09

While the price of oil is a factor in any economic cycle it is only one factor.

Agree, but a very large factor.

The price of oil was very high 18 months ago.Aircraft were full and the Australian economy was in overdrive.

It is suprising how much inertia the economy has. The whole GFC is like a slow speed train crash, and it's not even half way through. It takes time for people's attitudes and spending habits to change. However, the high oil prices did contribute to the GFC, therefore the economy is no longer in overdrive.

Now the price has fallen the economy is still ok.

Something about the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression...

If wages keep pace with the increase in oil prices and everybody has a job the economy continues to chug along.

Sadly, the data does not seem to support this. Real (inflation adjusted) US wages for example peaked in 1973.

Falling Leaf your Autumn has come, time to fly with the wind.

Very poetic, but fair enough. I was just trying to stop people attacking each other and squabbling over 'fags' and 'boilers', and suggest that there may be larger forces at play. But instead I just get attacked as being a wise arse.

I'll blow away now and see where the winds of change take the industry. Hope I'm proved to be totally wrong, for all of our sakes.;)

lowerlobe

6th Jul 2009, 10:11

Only half ..............?

That's just mean..... Capt Kremin...:E

rudderless1

6th Jul 2009, 10:39

Falling Leaf, don't go yet, you didn't respond on the fuel surcharge issue?:rolleyes:

Gingerbread

6th Jul 2009, 10:55

Seems not everyone thinks the Kangaroo is on its last legs?

According to Alan Kohler's Eureka Report today:

"Investors are advised to buy Qantas at current levels"

'Qantas has downgraded orders for its fleet, cancelling the delivery of 15 Boeing 787s and delaying the delivery of another 15 aircraft, which will reduce some of the pressure on the flying kangaroo’s balance sheet, giving many stock pickers reason to cheer.

However, with May traffic stats showing a decline in profit margins, some of them are also pointing out the greater risk that is now associated with airlines in general. One newsletter says the lower fleet orders will reduce group capital expenditure by about $3 billion, but the downgrade will delay the many of the airline’s highly anticipated initiatives.

While the lower traffic numbers may have already been factored in by management when they cut their full-year profit forecast by 80% and jettisoned almost 2000 staff, the recent entry of US carrier Delta Air Lines into the lucrative Australia-US route will certainly not be welcomed by Qantas, especially as demand for international travel remains weak.

The one thing in Qantas’ favour is that its management is continuing to prudently manage costs and capacity says one stock picker, who adds despite the impact of swine flu and general weakness in demand, Qantas stock represents good value and is well positioned to bounce back as market conditions improve.

Another stock picker says the airline is being priced more on an asset-based valuation rather than earnings potential, and although the valuation gap is closing the stock is still the best pick in the sector.' :ok:

Pedota

16th Jul 2009, 06:57

I certainly don’t agree with the title of this thread – BUT, I think the evidence is continuing to mount that some ‘full service’ airlines are facing some big issues demonstrating their ‘value proposition’ to a wide spectrum of customers.

This appeared in today’s Airline Transport World.

Cheers

Pedota

BA fears 'permanent' fall in premium demand, surging pension deficit

Wednesday July 15, 2009

British Airways CEO Willie Walsh continued to maintain yesterday that the carrier is in a "fight for survival" and that "just hoping for old high-roller times to return is the road to oblivion" at the company's annual shareholders meeting in London.
"There is no point trying to skirt around the fact that we need a fundamental and structural change to our employee cost base. These changes are essential to our short-term survival and more importantly to our long-term viability," he said. BA is in talks with unions to reduce its about 40,000-strong workforce by some 3,700 employees (ATWOnline, July 7).
Chairman Martin Broughton said the continuous fall in premium demand is "extremely grave news for major full-service airlines" and cautioned that the premium market may never recover fully. "There is evidence that business customers no longer place the same value on the levels of flexibility offered in the highest fare categories. This represents permanent structural change in the market and poses a fundamental challenge to our traditional business model," he said.

(The article continues focusing on the difficulties in getting the Iberia deal done).

argusmoon

16th Jul 2009, 11:51

This thread was started in April and surely QF wont be dead in October?

Wingspar

9th Dec 2009, 23:25

Well it's been over six months. Qantas is still here and operating in the same structure!
So much for the experts like Peter!

Mstr Caution

10th Dec 2009, 02:21

LCC's versus Premium carriers is a bit like..........

"Television will see the demise of picture theatres"

"Video Casette Recorders will replace going to the pictures"

"Home theatre will see the end of going to the movies"

gobbledock

10th Dec 2009, 06:17

QF dead ? Doubt it.
For those who have worked in the 'inner sanctum', or at least been fortunate to have been on talking terms with one of the upper echelon would know that the plan for QF to revert back to a Red Tail International entity while flicking domestic operations over to a cheaper brand was on the drawing board 6 years ago, in ink, it is nothing new !
This is not a new strategy, nor should it be seen as a new concept, its just that as economies decline worldwide the QF Group hasten to achieve this objective planned a long time ago.
Sorry to disapoint or be the bearer of bad tidings. But the strategy, not very complex in itself, is actually old old news.

From today's Australian -

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2009/12/09/1225808/831387-bruce-buchanan.jpg
Jetstar's Bruce Buchanan says the domestic expansion is expected to generate more than 200 jobs. Source: The Australian

JETSTAR will add 700,000 domestic seats and 77 new return flights in the first half of next year as it ramps up its Australian presence and embarks on one of its biggest expansions since starting service in 2004.

The airline will bring in five additional domestic aircraft in the first half, one of them an operational spare, as it significantly boosts services between Melbourne and Sydney and popular east coast leisure destinations.
The move will increase Jetstar's market share to about 18 per cent, ensuring Qantas Group meets its self-imposed rule that it retain at least 65 per cent of the domestic market.
It expects passenger numbers to increase by 7 per cent from the 2009 financial year total of 8.1 million.
"It's a big step for us," Jetstar chief executive Bruce Buchanan said yesterday. "We did the biggest ever launch back in 2004 and this step up is about half what we launched with back then."
The low-cost Qantas offshoot is responding to strong demand on routes from Sydney and Melbourne to the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Cairns, Newcastle and Tasmania.
Mr Buchanan said 700,000 seats would ensure there was enough low-fare capacity in the market to enable Jetstar to meet its commitment to have the lowest fares in the marketplace
He said the domestic expansion was expected to generate more than 200 flight and cabin crew jobs, as well as a string of promotions for pilots.
He said there would also be jobs in engineering, airports, call centres and the like.
"So it does create a lot of excitement and energy in the organisation and that's quite good," Mr Buchanan said.
The expansion comes after a year of uncharacteristically flat capacity growth for the airline.
However, Jetstar was one of the few profitable divisions for Qantas in 2009, recording an 18 per cent increase in pre-tax profit to $137 million, while its parent posted a $117m net profit for the year ending on June 30, down from $969m the previous year.
The move is also part of a bigger expansion -- Jetstar will next year add 15 aircraft to its narrow body fleet.
As well as the five planes coming to Australia, three will go to Singapore in the first half. The group will also add a widebody Airbus A330 this month and two more are due to arrive late next year.
Mr Buchanan said a decision was yet to be made on where the remaining seven aircraft would be deployed in the second half.
He said the airline was expanding into its heartland from a position of strength after a record 2008-09 profit of $137m and a profit margin 23 per cent better than its competitors.
Mr Buchanan said this meant the airline would be able to expand profitably.
"It's where we started in 2004 and it's really going in and continuing to cement what have been very strong positions for us in those markets over quite a number of years," he said.