PDA

View Full Version : Qantas to Paris


Ultergra
1st Feb 2010, 23:43
I was talking to a captain in HK recently who stated that Qantas is about to lose it's slot into Paris as it has not utilised it for quite some time. (I have no idea what the time requirement's are on the use of a slot...)

Rumour has it, Qantas management or otherwise said to the French, 'that's ok, we will use Jetstar to operate into there.' To which the French have said, 'No, only Qantas will be allowed.'

Discuss, 500 words or less.

34R
1st Feb 2010, 23:49
Have heard the same thing!

Qantas are attempting/looking to have the weight limits on the 330 increased, for future dabbling into Europe through KUL, perhaps...... but any expansion to that part of the world wont be done by us.

Having said that, I wasn't entirely sure the LAX/JFK flying was anything other than a rumour as well, so I stand to be corrected.

It's a wonderful thought though :ok:

GaryGnu
2nd Feb 2010, 01:18
Would the impending expiration of the "slot" you refer to be rendered irrelevant by the mooted Australia-EU airservices agrrement foreshadowed in the recent Aviation White Paper?

Or

Is this about access to the airport rather than the airspace a la Heathrow?

L5Brassco
2nd Feb 2010, 02:36
I was told QF won't be going back to Paris until they can get a daily "slot".

ditch handle
2nd Feb 2010, 02:38
I think we have access to daily slots now, after the last Transport Minister [John Anderson] made representations to the EU.

Metro man
2nd Feb 2010, 02:42
Prehaps there just isn't the demand for SYD-CDG. Difficult to compete with the Asian and Middle Eastern hubs here. Daily CDG-DBX/SIN with onward connections all over the world yes, is there enough traffic just wanting to go to OZ though ?

L5Brassco
2nd Feb 2010, 02:44
Then what the hell are we waiting for? We have spare 744's, I have a low line and can greet pax with a cheerful "Bonjour". After 32 yrs flying the Gallic shrug should be no problem when the IFE goes belly up.
Paris here I come...:)

Cookie7
2nd Feb 2010, 03:13
Just curious, but where do you think these spare 744's are?

Surely Frankfurt is close enough and good enough, remembering QF can codeshare into CDG if and when needed.

And seriously, of all places, why Paris? Why not for example, somewhere in Italy, Spain or even Central Europe - if they're insisting on having a 3rd city for QF to fly into?

L5Brassco
2nd Feb 2010, 03:25
I had my tongue firmly in cheek in my previous post
When the A380 was being introduced "management" spoke of the extra capacity on the "spare" 744's. It was suggested going back to Paris. Same "management" said demand was there but only if we had daily services.
I do have a lowline though...bless little Carmen:ugh:

MrWooby
2nd Feb 2010, 03:44
Qantas used to fly to Paris 3 times per week, that was around 1200 seats per week ad the flights were full. When code share started with Air France, airport manager stated it was 50 seats per flt. So we went from 1200 seats to 350 seats per week. So were did these other 850 passengers go, probably EK, Singair etc. Another great decision by QF.

We constantly see reports of QF market share dropping, most likely because we don't offer the pax an option of getting to their destination unless they want to go via LHR, FRA.

As stated, we have extra a/c and crews, but the management is so fixed on their Jetstar plans they fail to see any growth opportunities for Mainline. If we had 777's and QCCA cabin crew operating in them, we could offer a profitable full service option to ports in Europe with a known and trusted brand. Well at least it was trusted till Dixon took the helm.

breakfastburrito
2nd Feb 2010, 04:15
Why do I get that nagging gnawing feeling that management deliberately sabotage the QF longhaul operation in order to justify its destruction? Tell me my gut instinct is wrong.

golow
2nd Feb 2010, 04:51
MR Wooby
So its ok to have low cost cabin crew(QCCA) but not low cost pilots flying to Paris. At least I know what you think of your cabin crew now!

lowerlobe
2nd Feb 2010, 04:55
Difficult to compete with the Asian and Middle Eastern hubs here.
What difficulty is that Metro man?

The only problem I can see is the QF management.If they give the crew the right aircraft with the IFE etc...to compete with other carriers there is no problem.

How long have we watched the network retract...It's retreated more than the Italian army during WW2....:E

MrWooby is right about destinations and if you are flying to a major destination in Europe then why fly with QF with only Frankfurt or London in the UK to choose from.
If we had 777's and QCCA cabin crew operating in them, we could offer a profitable full service option to ports in Europe with a known and trusted brand.
If you are going to have cut price cabin crew then why not cut price tech crew?

Your comment shows how little some pilots know about the travelling public.

That is one of the problems with QF one area of the company does not give a hoot about the others and the company loves it....

If the company put as much effort into QF as it is with J* it would be flying to more destinations with a competitive product than it is at the moment....

You only have to remember the network we used to have and to also think that it was QF that thought of Business class and you can see that successive managements have well and truly dropped the ball.....:ugh:

skybed
2nd Feb 2010, 05:07
agreement with Europa won,t be around for some time,regardless what Rudd & Co thinks. Given that Europa is being carved up by LH & AF and partners and to a smaller extend BA & Iberia, Fortress Europa has become even bigger and they wont give away slots for nothing. Hence there will be limited opportunities for J*. The slots for QF could be taken up (Rome, Paris) but there is no strategy in place to make it work.:ugh:

MyerFlyer
2nd Feb 2010, 05:09
Maybe Paris would work now with the soon to be upgraded/reconfig 3 class (J,Y+, and Y) B744s?

-438
2nd Feb 2010, 05:17
Qantas could not make a profit to Rome and Paris because of their choice of aircraft. Significant numbers of B777's ordered 10 years ago and we would be a completely different airline today.

Nunc
2nd Feb 2010, 05:50
QANTAS could'nt make money to Rome because they were operating 747 classic's with 30 odd seats blocked off so they could get the gas on hence no/little profit. Whilst it would be great to see CDG back while management are still putting all their effort into porn* I suspect QANTAS longhaul will continue to flog along with it's arm's tied behind it's back like it has since the bow tie boy took the reins. Management have alway's been from domestic side and have little idea how to run international ops, SFO a case in point.

Standby Scum
2nd Feb 2010, 05:59
The Qantas Kangaroo route via London to Paris adds 2 hours onto an already long trip. Originally Qantas weren't allowed into Paris as a tit for tat for not allowing Air France into Australia. This changed when British Airways bought into Qantas.

Although Air Mail postage between say the UK and Australia is fast, mail from France is typically 10+ days as only Air France takes French mail out of France whereupon mail is dumped out in the open in Singapore where it is nobody's responsibility until it's eventually put on a Qantas flight. Not enough people effected. No votes in the issue. 'Who cares' is the attitude.

Wod
2nd Feb 2010, 07:17
QANTAS could'nt make money to Rome because they were operating 747 classic's with 30 odd seats blocked off so they could get the gas on hence no/little profit.


I don't think so. the problem with Southern Europe, ROM, ATH (and BEG if you want to go back far enough) is no First or Business class volume, and no Freight.

LHR and FRA provide that, and PAR, maybe, would have benefited from 777 - not enough to make the case though.

Fleet choice always involves compromise.

Metro man
2nd Feb 2010, 07:18
What difficulty is that Metro man?

Hub based carriers such as EK and SQ funnel traffic in from all points on the network and disperse it on to various destinations. EK can operate several daily services to CDG as its passengers can go on to South America, Africa, Asia and Australia.

QF passengers are going to be mostly for Australian destinations only. Are there enough of them who will choose QF over EK/SQ to make it worth while ?

The difference is when EK/SQ fly to a city they offer worldwide connections through their network and have a huge market. When QF fly to a city they offer Australia/NZ only and have to compete with the lower costs of Asian and Middle Eastern airlines.

A reduction of traffic between France and Australia would affect QF directly, possibly rendering the flight uneconomical, where as for EK this would only be a small overall reduction possibly compensated by increased traffic to other destinations. If the French suddenly prefer India over Australia, Emirates can still fly them QF can't.

aveng
2nd Feb 2010, 07:57
777 - really do we want another type? What about dipping a toe into the french market with a long range (yes Geoff, they are not the small, short range aircraft you thought you were buying for domestic flying) A330-200.:ok:

ditch handle
2nd Feb 2010, 08:09
The A330-200.

Another QF management cluster [email protected]#k. :ugh:

Ordering an aircraft [with almost the range of a 744] and specifying it with only enough galley space to serve one meal service despite the protestations of every operational department in the company.

What geniuses.:mad:

RedTBar
2nd Feb 2010, 08:11
What about dipping a toe into the french market
Silly question old chap because the 777 is not French besides the skygods can fly anything and will probably offer to do it without a pay rise so Jetstar don't get it.:E

Metro Man,I think what the others were saying is that we could have done that once but if they keep cutting back we will be doing LHR and LAX and thats about it.

Here's an idea.How about basing a dozen or so Jetstar aircraft in Frankfurt and then we would have our own hub.It could be called something like,hang on this is a hard one,I've got it.
Jetstar Europe:E
The problem with that is that it would mean that jetstar would be bigger than it's parent and we can't have that.
Can we?

packrat
2nd Feb 2010, 08:12
A lot of UK residents detest Death Row(AKA Heathrow).
Going to CDG meant a lot of Irish,Scottish and Northern UK residents could bypass Heathrow and fly Direct to Manchester,Shannon and Edinburgh.
There was more UK residents on these sectors than there were French.
Critical mass for QF was 5 slots a week.
3 slots just wouldnt cut it

Metro man
2nd Feb 2010, 08:23
What might have been with a fleet of B777s operating through the Singapore hub. The right aircraft with the right product at the right price, if QF could have delivered that years ago the network could be far more extensive.

SYD/BNE/PER/MEL/ADL to Paris, Athens, Rome, India etc via Singapore.

RedTBar
2nd Feb 2010, 08:39
MM,thats thinking ahead and you cannot do that if you are looking for a job with QF.
Instead if you come up with ideas for cutting costs and services you're into the finals.
Cutting back is todays mantra for this airline.

Pontious was a pilot for QF the last time we extended our network.

Back Seat Driver
2nd Feb 2010, 09:37
Red, I checked an old seniority list and couldn't find "Pontious"
Pontious was a pilot for QF the last time we extended our network
However I do recall a fellow named Pontius, but he was a 'pilate' in some other outfit. :E

Nunc
2nd Feb 2010, 09:39
Wod it is pretty hard to carry freight when you are already off loading pax to carry fuel for the sector. The 400 when it was used on this route (and CDG) used to have first class and made money, the classic got it because there was more money putting it through LHR. Agree with you re aircraft types, QF should have had 777's long ago but domestic focus and crap management-well you know the story.

Ultergra
2nd Feb 2010, 10:01
I'd dare say there would be a market for flights from India to France.

QF already fly the A330 into India. Keep it moving onto Europe.

RedTBar
2nd Feb 2010, 10:53
However I do recall a fellow named Pontius, but he was a 'pilate' in some other outfit
I knew there would be one.:rolleyes:

I should have just said it was a long time ago.

sigh :hmm:

By the way BSD I was joking.He was really a scheduler with El Al but told everyone he was a pilot(sic) :cool:

OneDotLow
2nd Feb 2010, 13:12
golow said:

So its ok to have low cost cabin crew(QCCA) but not low cost pilots flying to Paris. At least I know what you think of your cabin crew now!

The difference there being that QFLH Cabin Crew signed off on the creation of QCCA in their last EBA for a lousy couple of grand. As for what QF Tech Crew (and younger cabin crew for that matter) think; well that was a pretty silly/selfish decision. Hopefully tech crew will not do the same! But to say that QF tech crew wish lower conditions upon our cabin crew is inaccurate.

RedTBar
2nd Feb 2010, 20:12
But to say that QF tech crew wish lower conditions upon our cabin crew is inaccurate.
Why then was the comment by Mr Wooby.If we had 777's and QCCA cabin crew operating in them, we could offer a profitable full service option to ports in Europe with a known and trusted brand.
It seems fairly obvious to anyone reading that comment that the author means to have cheaper cabin crew would mean the airline would be more profitable.

The same then would be true about any group in the airline including tech crew.
The politics about that decision have been debated time and again and there is no point going over them again.Not all of us agreed with the idea and still don't but sometimes you are left with no other option.
I remember the 400 influenced tech crew union making some agreements that had the 767 tech crew seething.
So if you are telling us that your union is one big happy bunch you can pull the other one.
I remember watching 2 groups of tech crew (767 and 747) in Cairns drinking at separate tables and not mixing.There was also the infamous statement made by the head of your union about not trusting any 767 tech crew.
Hopefully tech crew will not do the same!
This has already been talked about in other posts when your union did not let the impulse guys join.
The result was onestar.So much for solidarity.

Your union and some tech crew also agreed to AO.There you had QF tech crew flying the 767 on different terms and conditions with QF and AO.That set the ball rolling for Darth to start up Onestar.

I don't want to start an argument but the airline had us over a barrel.We don't have the industrial power that you guys have and even now I'm still not happy about it but I honestly think that if the airline had you guys in the same situation your union and you guys would do the same.

qfguy
2nd Feb 2010, 20:34
Nunc,

What do you mean that "SFO is a case in point"?

The fact it is not full all the time? Or that is it not well run?

RedTBar
2nd Feb 2010, 20:39
What do you mean that "SFO is a case in point"?
The fact is that we pulled out in a very short sighted decision once only to work out that it was a dumb move and we went back again after a few years.

qfguy
2nd Feb 2010, 20:42
Ok... wasn't sure what the statement meant.

Typical though... we did the same in EZE a few years ago as well!!

ditch handle
2nd Feb 2010, 21:05
and we went back again after a few years.

It took 15 years to get back in to be precise.

Geniuses :mad:

RedTBar
2nd Feb 2010, 21:18
Thanks Ditch,I had forgotten it was that long.15 years,no wonder we burn our bridges so many times.It takes years to get into a port and then many more to get a good market share then how many times have we just given it away?:ugh:

We are very lucky to have the leaders that we do.:yuk:

MrWooby
2nd Feb 2010, 22:13
Your pay for a job is all about skills required, who can do the job, are you easily replaced, etc. As pilots, your looking at years of training, skill development etc. We are finite resource as was seen in the recent pilot shortage, and given the forecast growth in our area it will happen again. I think pilots are paid fairly for the skills required and the responsibility we have. Some pilots have chosen to sell their skills a bit cheaper to gain that job, thats their choice. There is bit of argy bargy about our pay levels at the moment, management trying to reduce costs, pilots trying to maintain them. Hopefully we can bring the pay of LCC's up without too much of a drop in pay for full service airlines. But overall, if you want good pilots you have to pay for them.

However with flight attendants I would say that most Qf cabin crew would secretly admit they are paid extremely well for the work they do and the skills required. I wish they could maintain that position, however if you can be replaced with someone who has a few weeks training, its going to be very difficult to maintain your pricing power.

RedTBar
2nd Feb 2010, 22:24
Yes Mr Wooby but that's not what you said.You said IF we used 777 and cheaper cabin crew then we could offer a profitable service to Paris.Why not with QAL cabin crew?
If you want to save the airline money and help it's profitability why not with J* tech crew to save even more money?
Your pay for a job is all about skills required
Are you saying that QF tech crew could do the job better than J* tech crew because you are paid more.If not then the smart thing to do would be to use J* tech crew and save AJ a lot of money as you suggested with using QCCA crew.
I would say that most Qf cabin crew would secretly admit they are paid extremely well for the work they do and the skills required.
I bet there are a lot of QF tech crew that would secretly say the same under the current circumstances.

stubby jumbo
2nd Feb 2010, 22:50
The other side of the coin for QF flights to CDG is the INBOUND / VFR traffic.
As there is a Federal Election later in the year -this will become a very hot issue for the pollies to argue about.
The Tourism industry is been smashed at the moment ( especially in FNQ). The high dollar,GFC etc means its basically the back packer fraternity keeping things going.
The French love to come to Oz. BUT-sadly as cheaply as possible. Enter stage left -JQ.

As been stated previously QF fleet planning has been appalling. Just look at our kiwi cousins and what they are doing with their 777-300's.

I reckon QF will "pulle Le Pin" on Paris-as they need the daily slot for a 744 to make it cost effective.

...............another one bites the dust :ugh:

indamiddle
2nd Feb 2010, 23:05
ok, back to the thread.
management, by this i mean many different talking heads, have repeatedly said that as we couldn't get daily slots to CDG the numbers didn't stack up and that is the reason we pulled out. no-one claimed crew costs were ever a factor in this discussion. until we get daily rights then CDG will not happen.

funbags
2nd Feb 2010, 23:10
redtbar. I would suggest our skill set is just a little more complex than what is required to be cabin crew. Can you make a peanut butter sandwich? You're hired! Hence the difference in pay rates.

RedTBar
2nd Feb 2010, 23:42
funbags,you're a funny fellow.If you think that making a peanut butter sandwich is the only skill requirement for cabin crew then I would stick to flying if I were you.

That is if you really are a pilot because you only seem to post about anti cabin crew matters.

RedTBar
2nd Feb 2010, 23:53
Getting back on track I hope that we get back into Paris but I doubt it will happen.If it does it will be Jetstar.
The airline has got it's wedge with the jetstar.Look at some of the posts with V Australia and what they are paying crew.
Within a few years QF will be doing London,Los Angeles,maybe New York still,Hong Kong and maybe Frankfurt but I wouldn't be holding my breath.Why would they be wanting Paris?
They might want the slots for Jetstar but not for us.
no-one claimed crew costs were ever a factor in this discussion
Don't kid yourself indamiddle,this is all about money.They got us with QCCA but they still have QF tech crew on their pay scales.So Jetstar is looking the goods for any new port including Paris.Once they get their foot in the door with Paris Jetstar will be over Europe like a rash.I think that if you look at the Jetstar route maps in a few years it will look like QF's network in the 60's and early 70's.

Taildragger67
3rd Feb 2010, 04:10
With respect to availability of slots, this press release (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/releases/2009/november/aa507_2009.htm) states that the 3x / week is a limit imposed by the bilateral air services agreement currently in force between Australia and France.

Market access is being discussed under the umbrella of the Australia / EU open skies discussions currently taking place. It does seem rather silly that an agreement between the two countries at the end of the line precludes carriers from at least one of those countries from properly competing with carriers based at points between.

As an interim, I'd be interested in asking Les Frogs if there's any chance of a quick grant of Fifth-Freedom rights between Heathrow or Frankfurt and CDG?

So you'd operate your directs 3x / week and Fifth Freedom in the other four days et voila! Daily services and use of slots and possibly increased utilisation of the QF005/006 airframe.

Bad Hat Harry
3rd Feb 2010, 04:53
Qantas did this many moons ago.
Transit time in CDG was about 6 hours from memory.
Just enough time to go into town have lunch,come back,have a kip and then back to work

capt.cynical
3rd Feb 2010, 07:48
Harry I remember those transits. We used to stay at the hotel that the "Concorde" crashed into. :(

Toolongincruise
5th Feb 2010, 00:21
I have to agree with 438 here.

Over 70% of the cost base of an airline is down to fuel and aircraft costs(maintenance e.t.c).

The fact that Qantas are running 20 year old 747's that use higher amounts of fuel and are costly to maintain(4 engines and old aircraft not under warranty) is the deal breaker.

The flight crew cost (3-4 pilots) is a very small percentage of the cost base.

If we were to use Jetstar pilots on Qantas mainline routes the Qantas operation would not suddenly become profitable.

Still we get suckered in though.

If Qantas mainline had a modern fleet of appropriate aircraft,i.e the 777 ,we probably could rationalize more routes than we do currently. We would also stand a greater chance of remaining profitable on current Qantas routes.

I don't see any Jetstar aircraft that are 20 years old with a minimum of 20 defects. Reason: They could not make it economically viable without new aircraft leased cheaply off the back of the Qantas Group.

RedTBar
5th Feb 2010, 03:15
Actually the 2 biggest costs in running an airline these days are fuel and wages.
There's no doubt about it that a newer more fuel efficient aircraft would help the bottom line but if you looked at the cost of wages for QF mainline pilots compared to the costs of wages for the Jetstar pilot group there would be a huge difference.
It's not only the money the airline pays for wages it's also the super,holidays,LSL etc..and the difference would be significant.It's not only that but the efficiency of the two awards.So it's not just looking at a 2,3 or 4 person crew it's the costs of both groups you would have to look at.

If this was not an issue why did the company go to the trouble they have setting up the Jetstar model with different pilot groups?

Toolongincruise
5th Feb 2010, 05:32
Red T Bar,

That is simply incorrect.

Refer to the cost pie chart in the latest data book from Qantas available on Australian Securities Exchange - Stock Market Information, Stock Quotes - ASX (http://www.asx.com.au) and use QAN for the ASX code.

Wages as you refer are not isolated Crew costs(tech and cabin) which I am referring to.

Wages include staff across the whole group from executive level down to the lowest paid staff member.

To suggest that Flight crew costs are the second largest is rubbish.

On the A380 fleet with the increased cabin crew numbers(20-22 cabin crew) crew costs may in fact be slightly bigger as a percentage and hence why QCCA crew operate in these larger numbers.I am not suggesting that I'm pleased that staff
are paid lower than their Qantas equivalents.

The point is simple and sadly you have missed it.

If Qantas mainline were to operate new aircraft that were more suited to the routes flown and were more fuel efficient to operate and more efficient to maintain and service then this would make a greater difference than what cabin or tech crew are paid.

This is why Jetstar are only flying new aircraft that are bought and leased cheaply off the back of the Qantas group.

breakfastburrito
5th Feb 2010, 06:31
Toolongincruise, save you breath, redtbar is a pathological pilot-hating troll. Get a knock-back from did you red?

RedTBar
8th Feb 2010, 09:25
breakfastburrito,I don't hate anyone or any group and I'm certainly not jealous of any group ,pilot or otherwise.
I also am not a troll as you suggest.Instead I am pointing out the obvious and that is the difference in one of the comparative crew costs between a legacy airline and a LCC.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation

An organisation owns both a legacy airline and a LCC :E.

They both employ the same number of pilots and for this example let's say 500.

Let's use an average difference in gross pay between the two pilot groups of $100,000 per pilot then the total difference is $50,000,000.If you are suggesting that the difference is negligable then you are not being honest.

Add to that super,LSL,annual holidays not too mention paying for your own endorsement and you get the picture.It is a significant amount.They have already got their pound of flesh with Cabin Crew on a different award and achieved a huge cost saving as well as ground staff.The only thing I am saying is that the company would love to do the same with pilots.

B772
8th Feb 2010, 11:49
What is the company contribution as a % of salary to the pilot superannuation plans for both Qantas and Jetstar ?.

dragon man
8th Feb 2010, 18:50
Redtbar, the maths are simple as you explain, however from those savings (and i doubt they are that big) you have to pay for a seperate management including CEO, CFO, CP etc, training section etc and all the buildings to house these duplicated positions. Although some extra staff would be required if all worked for one company i doubt the savings from pilot wages would pay for the entire process of duplication.

packrat
8th Feb 2010, 18:59
This thread is about QF returning to Paris.
Not about wages,Jeststar or petty differences,
Get with the programme

C441
8th Feb 2010, 22:03
Beat me to it Dragon.

Only problem with our argument though, is that the offspring looks incredibly efficient when many of the costs of its upbringing are paid by the parent. :rolleyes:

RedTBar
10th Feb 2010, 09:30
dragon man,yes the maths are simple because they're true.If they're not show me and I'll happily accept the correction.The infrastructure you mention is already there.They have the management etc that you talked about.
Check in and ground staff are already cheaper than QF as well as cabin crew and pilots.Although long haul QF have now got qcca cabin crew which are supposed to be as cheap as Jetstar
The difference between the 2 is the cost of the pilots flying to places like Paris.

With the cost difference I can't see us going anywhere new unless it has a viable business class market.Even then I think they would have Jetstar feeder services in Europe connecting with the QF flights out of London and Frankfurt.I hope I'm wrong but the days of us flying to Paris,Athens,Rome,Belgrade and others are a distant memory.

Going Boeing
10th Feb 2010, 10:23
The reason why QF mainline is unlikely to go back to Paris (apart from the politics of slots at CDG) is that modern airline financial models favour "out and back" operations where they get two sectors out of the operating crews with only one accommodation and allowance cost. When QF mainline previously operated to Paris (& Rome etc), the operation involved each crew flying four sectors with three lots of accommodation and allowances - therefore crew costs are significantly higher. When Qantas was refused rights for a daily service, it was cheaper to code share with Air France who were flying a daily "out & back" service CDG-SIN-CDG.

Future Jetstar operations to Athens and Rome look like being flown by crews from Jetstar Australia (International) and Jetstar Asia - Jetstar Oz will do an "out & back" operation from Australian ports to SIN and Jetstar Asia will do an "out & back" operation SIN-FCO-SIN and SIN-ATH-SIN. This will result in lower crewing costs as well as giving crews more nights at home thus allowing higher utilisation. This concept is not new, eg Australian Airlines (AO) was set up to operate from Cairns to the Orient under this style of planning.

All the desire by Oz based crews to operate these trips will not cause the financial geniuses who manage airlines to deviate from this planning model. Airlines like SQ & EK etc have the advantage of being based in the middle of the major routes, thus their flying patterns are almost entirely "out & back".

captainrats
10th Feb 2010, 10:41
Going Boeing has nailed it.
Look at the number of out and back trips mainline does.
Apart from LHR and FRA and a few regional patterns everything else is O and B
High Crew utilization,reduced allowances and accommodation.
The quality of hotel has also been declining and therefore cheaper.
CDG not on the horizon for mainline.Nice dream though

RedTBar
10th Feb 2010, 19:15
Going Boeing,using your economic aviation model we will be losing London and Frankfurt as well.
At least you've admitted that cost is the biggest factor apart from the politics.

The real problem is the business market.Like Athens,Rome,Belgrade and the other destinations we have given way the common factor is a business market.If the main market is tourism and that means economy why operate a legacy airline when you can operate your LCC with overall lower cost including lower crew costs?

Even if there is a reasonable business market potential the crew costs with QF are still higher than Jetstar.In the book 'The Men who killed Qantas' I think it was Hudson Fysh who mentioned that upper management and the board were jealous of the pay that QF's pilots got.

That is one of the reasons why Jetstar was created especially after AO did not quite get the savings required.

If you look at the difference between AO and Jetstar,what were the biggest differences on costing?

AO used QF tech crew and older less fuel efficient aircraft with tired interiors.

Jetstar uses cheaper pilots with newer fuel efficient aircraft with new interiors.

I hope Going Boeing is wrong because if they cannot get crew costs down compared to jetstar then QF is doomed because they will set up QF lite in Singapore or BKK and QF Australia will end up only flying out of and back into Australia.

There goes London,frankfurt,New York and with it Qantas history.

Keg
10th Feb 2010, 22:04
Going Boeing,using your economic aviation model we will be losing London and Frankfurt as well.

Have not cabin crew lost most London's to an 'out and back' operation?

If QF thought they could base techies in LHR for cheaper than they fly us up and back I'm sure they'd go for it. Personally I think they'd struggle to find an appropriate number of Australian licensed 744 crews in London who would be prepared to work for what QF would have to pay in order to save the money compared on operating our guys up and back.

RedTBar
10th Feb 2010, 22:36
Have not cabin crew lost most London's to an 'out and back' operation?
No,they lost most londons because GD wanted to save money and set up a london base.The union did not fight it and the airline set it up at a big cost.
Now with the qcca crew there is a big question as to if it is still saving them money.They have already closed down BKK because it wasn't saving them any money and they were not paying the BKK crew much anyway.They still have to pay hotel,food and transport for the london based cabin crew in Singapore,bkk and hkg so it's only the benefit of the cost of london that is in question.The unknown is how much it costs to run the base in london and if that costs more or less than putting up Australian based crew in london.

The airline got their qcca crew so they have achieved what they wanted.
If QF thought they could base techies in LHR for cheaper than they fly us up and back I'm sure they'd go for it.
I agree and it's why I don't go along with Going Boeings idea of the out and back costs.

They have got their pound of flesh with cabin crew costs even if they need qal crew to keep things running on the dugong.

Unless they can get the other crew cost down it will be Jetstar who unfortunately will be flying to places like Rome and paris when they get the aircraft.

I think the possibility of a dugong in Jetstar livery with mainly y/c and a small star class zone a very big possibility.

Going Boeing
10th Feb 2010, 23:00
Posted by Red T Bar,
No,they lost most londons because GD wanted to save money and set up a london base.

The London C/C base is an "out and back" operation to SIN, HKG & BKK (BKK currently operated by SYD crew). Have a think about all the changes that Dixon made in relating to crewing and look at the subsequent crewing patterns. The only reason that SYD C/C are operating to London at all is because of strong negotiation by your union to retain one service per day.

There is pressure on the Frankfurt operation - management has been looking at Jetstar A330/B787 operations into there. The biggest problem is the limited amount of freight that the twins will carry and we currently get a lot of revenue from freight in that port.

The problem with pilot bases in LHR (or FRA) is one of licencing. If Qantas could get sufficient cheap pilots with residential status in the UK (or Germany) that hold an Oz ATPL (needed to fly Oz registered aircraft) they would try it (even though they know they would get serious industrial action). Qantas pick their times to have a stoush with unions so it's possible that they'll try it on in the future.

RedTBar
10th Feb 2010, 23:21
Going Boeing,your out and back theory does not work with london or is arguable at best.

It does not matter if the crew operating London to Singapore are based in Sydney,Melbourne or London.The costs are the same,the only difference is that of transport,hotel and food for the London slip.

Now that the airline has qcca crew the question is 'Are the savings made by not slipping Australian crew in London offset by the cost of running the base in London?'

If the cost of running the base is not offset then it will go the same way that the Thai base did and just as suddenly.

They have their cheaper cabin crew,ground staff etc and now the only cost that has stayed higher than jetstar are the pilots wages.

Like I said in my last post.What if they painted a dugong in Jetstar livery and operated them to Frankfurt,Rome,Paris etc.

The only thing we (QF) have to our advantage is the business market.They will not fly Jetstar to and from Europe.

Keg
11th Feb 2010, 00:21
The costs are the same,the only difference is that of transport,hotel and food for the London slip.

Agreed. So let's extrapolate this a bit.

What are allowances in LHR these days? 80 quid a day? Allow 60 quid for accommodation per person also (it was 84 quid at the hotel for techies a couple of years back). So 140ish GBP per day per cabin crew. Four flights a day times 15 crew is 60 crew in town per day. I make that to be 8500 GBP per day. Three million GBP per annum on those figures.

Next, factor in how much less the LHR based C/C are paid p.a compared to their SYD counterparts.

My point is that out and back always saves money if you can get the personnel. Why haven't we 'lost LHR and FRA'? Cabin crew essentially lost LHR due to the above numbers. Techies are unlikely to lose it in the short to medium term due the issues GB highlights. FRA is unlikely probably due to not being able to get cabin crew at rock low prices.

RedTBar
11th Feb 2010, 01:25
factor in how much less the LHR based C/C are paid p.a compared to their SYD counterparts.
No Keg,the airline has qcca crew which are about the same cost as jetstar crew.There is also a rumour that London based crew are subject to an hours limitation which is less than the hours that qcca crew work.

Add to that the high turnover in the london base,training,ep's,management and other financial costs involved in running a separate business to QF in the UK.I bet there would be extra work for someone or section in Sydney looking over the London base.

We could always ask the airline for the costing of the base but I have a feeling that you would be waiting a long time.:E

This comes back to the thread and going back to Paris.I still think that because of the higher cost of QF tech crew that Jetstar will get the nod before we do.

I wonder if any consideration to a daily flight into Paris/Europe will be given if there are more Airbus orders made from Mascot?

If there is then the question is who will get the new airbuses?

an3_bolt
11th Feb 2010, 04:46
Hey guys....

No point getting excited about anything here.

I am sure that the difference in cost really is negligible - and any decision regarding who what where why and how is not going to be made by anyone debating on Pprune. Sorry chaps.

To purchase aircraft you would have to do appropriate costing for the route structure, landing charges, leasing, hours per annum, crew costs etc etc etc. This is all done before negotiations on who will fly what to where - so the costs are already factored in - and in all likeliness so are the crew that are going to do the work.

Really - it is game over before it begins - and negotiations are only to see if it will get done more cheaply.......

RedTBar
11th Feb 2010, 23:05
an3_bolt,No need to worry we're only talking and giving our views.No different from talking over crew drinks.
This is about wondering if QF will every go back to paris and anywhere else.My point was about the cost of crewing any new aircraft and the impact of that cost on your decision.
Talking about that costing you hit the nail on the head
To purchase aircraft you would have to do appropriate costing for the route structure, landing charges, leasing, hours per annum, crew costs etc etc etc. This is all done before negotiations on who will fly what to where - so the costs are already factored in - and in all likeliness so are the crew that are going to do the work.
an3_bolt,you could not have said it better.All that's left is to ask is which crew is cheaper,Jetstar or QF.

maggotdriver
12th Feb 2010, 02:15
Do you know that a youth hostel is cheaper than the Hilton? The question is, who is most likely going to Paris? The backpacker who usually starts his European adventure in London, or the middle aged couple whose kids have left school and have always wanted a second honeymoon plus a handful of business people?
Stop arguing costs, they're not your problem. Start explaining and showing why someone should pay that little bit more for superior product. It's the little things that make the difference. Having a bulkhead between cabins and galleys, getting someone walk up and down the aisle every twenty minutes with water or wine (I wish). Not having someone with their smelly feet on the seat. Some people don't want to stay in a "Flagg". I haven't seen BMW go broke yet, or better still AUDI (and they're a nicely dressed up VW). Costs are always relevant to doing business but if the cost gets a greater return then you're in front. We have to compete with other full service providers and make a point of difference over low cost carriers, the costs aren't the only thing that counts. We can't all become a captive audience to their mantra. Rant over.

RedTBar
12th Feb 2010, 20:54
The question is, who is most likely going to Paris? The backpacker who usually starts his European adventure in London
You cannot be serious maggotdriver?

Where is the first place that the tour buses go to when they leave london?

Do you really think that all backpackers just go to the UK?

You got one thing right and thats who is most likely to be going to Paris and I don't think it's the business market.That means the leisure market and guess who they will fly with.Thats right the airline with the cheapest ticket and between QF and Jetstar who will that be?
I haven't seen BMW go broke yet, or better still AUDI (and they're a nicely dressed up VW). Costs are always relevant to doing business but if the cost gets a greater return then you're in front.
The rumour is that Mercedes were losing a million $ a day during the recent GFC and the other premium car makers were not doing that well either.

If times are tough who do you think retains more market share,the cheaper car makers or the premium car makers?
the costs aren't the only thing that counts. We can't all become a captive audience to their mantra.
QF is competing with airlines with much lower pay rates and lower tax and also with those with rumoured help with fuel.

If you think costs are not the only thing that counts then don't quit your day job.

maggotdriver
14th Feb 2010, 18:38
Red T bar, QANTAS managers have consistently said that Jetstar has a lower cost base than any other airline in Australia. Why then do Virgin survive? Or indeed QANTAS? Maybe they offer something more worth purchasing? Maybe Virgin's young enthusiastic cabin crew have a service difference? Maybe their frequent flyer program and lounges are it for both airlines over Jetstar and Tiger? They all cost something but it's worth the difference apparently to people who don't just drive Corollas or Hyundais. The problem is when you charge for a premium service and people expect a premium service and they don't get the premium service. One of the greatest indicators for customers is ontime performance. How much the cost? Unfortunately, A380-800 driver has hit the real problem on the head. Their costs probably aren't much different to Jetstar's, however look at the point of difference. I know which one I would like to fly to Paris.:yuk: