PDA

View Full Version : Qantas Indecisive and Complaining


air bender
31st Aug 2010, 01:48
The recent VB tie-up with Etihad Airways gives travellers much more choice flying to and around Europe and critically, they can do so with less time trawling busier, congested hubs like Singapore or Bangkok.
Qantas’ master plan to have Jetstar operate flights to Europe will almost certainly have to be looked at again.

V Australia may well be considering asking for access to Europe through Abu Dhabi, gut given Etihad’s extensive network, it’s unlikely they’ll need to ask anytime soon. For Jetstar, the critical advantage of being a long haul low cost airline has been hit with not just Qantas’ indecision of deliveries of their 787 fleet (http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2010/04/14/boeing787-slots/), but also because the flight times that will be cut on V Australia flights to the Middle East and Europe will favour them over Jetstar.

Qantas has been painfully slow to react to industry changes and this isn’t the first time they’ve been found wanting.

Already, the flag carrier has been hostile to the expansion of Emirates and Etihad into its Sydney hub and has lost plenty of business as a result. At the lower end, Air New Zealand has been eating away at leisure traffic leaving Qantas to look like a stranger in its own backyard.

V Australia’s move could see the airline opt to order or lease more 777-300ERs to complement its expansion – even if it doesn’t, the fact that they are starting services to Abu Dhabi within months should be warning enough that Qantas needs to get its act together – and quickly.

whatever6719
31st Aug 2010, 06:37
I agree that QF needs to do something. For too long, QF has rested on its laurels, relying on goodwill, safety, etc etc. I fear that the goodwill has been basically trashed in recent years and the company needs fresh, innovative leadership that is not all about the growth of JQ at all costs.

If someone can explain to me why the average punter would be prepared to go to Europe on JQ, paying merrily as they go, as opposed to flying a full service Asian carrier that offers the lot. Quite a few of the second tier Asian carriers (not the SQ's and CX's) will be offering very competitive fares to compete. I somehow dont think JQ are going be several hundred bucks cheaper than its competitors on the Southern European run. If they are, then will it be worth it?? Will it make any money???

Yes, Qantas does need to think differently. Sure, they are a business trying to make a buck in a very competitive environment but if DJ are able to grab the bull by the horns and be innovative with their furture direction, then why cant QF??
What may have worked in the past wont work now and into the future. But going by its track record, Im not going to hold my breath!!

newsensation
31st Aug 2010, 06:54
Here is a start Get rid of the jetstar brand altogether, paint the planes in qantas colours incorporate the crews into qantas, lease some 777's sack BB and all his brainless men....

dragon man
31st Aug 2010, 07:20
Newsensation i think youve hit the nail on the head. I think QF are on the slide. They have decided to fight in the gutter for the $50 fares rather than go for yeild. And i for one cant see Australians travelling QF/Jetstar to Rome/Athens or numerous other European ports on an A330 with small seats plus having to pay extra for meals and entertainment when you can go on a VAUS 777 and a nice new Ethaid aircraft all inclusive. Only time will tell but i know i wouldnt back the QF horse unfortunately.

Ka.Boom
31st Aug 2010, 08:10
Borghetti was the last of the redtail men
The last one at QF who knew how to run an international airline.
Now he is gone and Virgin is on the march.
Leigh Clifford is a miner and Joyce has run a low cost carrier.
May be QF will morph into a low cost iron ore producer
Its certainly not much chop as an airline

waren9
31st Aug 2010, 08:18
Dragon Man

Exactly the take AirNZ has on it. They openly do not compete on price, with free IFE, meals, lounges, better seat pitch, lie flat economy, blah blah.

Jetstar so far has only exceeded in buying its own market share. Some of it at the expense of QF I might suggest. Running aircraft around and wearing them out for sweet all profit.

Hub in SIN or hub in AUH? Thats seems to be the question for punters. Which will offer the most for the ticket price?

You will be hard pressed to run cheaper than the ME carriers. Jetstar, I believe will need to offer more than cheap tickets to be successful in to europe.

MrWooby
31st Aug 2010, 08:36
Air Bender you are incorrect regarding flight times being shorter on V Aus via Abu Dhabi. The great circle distance via Singapore is less then via Abu Dhabi.

Rome:
SYD-AUH-ROM 10181nm
SYD-SIN-ROM 10144nm

London:
SYD-AUH-LHR 10924nm
SYD-SIN-LHR 10624nm

Southern europe flt times are pretty equal but to Northern Europem flights via Singapore would be 30-40 mins shorter.

air bender
31st Aug 2010, 08:59
I was talking about SYD/SIN/AUH and onto Europe..two stops cf one
This is about Jetstar vs Virgin to Europe
Distance is not always consistent with flight times...geostrophic winds ring a bell?
Fly to LHR to get to Europe.How arcane.
Fly to AUH and Europe is your oyster
Cuts out Deathrow(aka Heathrow)
QF recently stated they were looking at other European Airports now that Heathrow has decided not ot expand any further.
The ME will be to be to northbound travel from Oz what SIN was 20 years ago
Qantas is fiddling around while others are being forward thinking

AirborneSoon
31st Aug 2010, 09:04
Southern europe flt times are pretty equal but to Northern Europem flights via Singapore would be 30-40 mins shorter.

You may technically be correct about that, but I really doubt anyone is going to make a ticket purchasing decision on 30 mins...:=

T-Vasis
31st Aug 2010, 11:10
flight times that will be cut on V Australia flights to the Middle East and Europe will favour them over Jetstar.

Not necessarily - cost is king for many - and they will fly JQ on price alone...

Guys - there is a lot of comment that punters will not fly JQ when they can fly 'full service' and/or competitive Asian carriers - I am afraid that's just not fact.

The fact is, JQ International performs well - enjoy high seat factor and deliver quality yield against the cost-base it operates. I recently travelled on JQ International twice (330) ops to two destinations where there are competitors that offer a better 'full service' product and the JQ flights were full, 100%. One of those destinations included V's 777 and PAC Blue 737 as operators into that destination.

I am afraid for the demographic that JQ caterers too, there will always be patronage and cost is king for the majority component of that 'demographic'.

Just look at the punters who fly JQ MEL/DRW/SIN...for me, I consider that a nightmare journey - 13 odd hours, stop-over in a shocker of an airport (DRW) and 4 + hours a piece on potentially a 180 seat A320 with 28 inches of pitch and no recline, however the route performs because cost is king - there are plenty of 'choices' to SIN that can get you there in half the time...

At the end of the day, JQ's product is not for everyone, however it suits some, and really, the product is not that bad. Given you need to pay for service you want (which is a good thing), the end product, when compared to other airlines in the world, is pretty good. I'd certainly rate JQ over a number of carriers I've flown over the years - by FAR! There are some shockers out there!

The same applies to Tiger in AUS - hated by many, yet deliver seat factors of +80%...so, they obviously are meeting the needs of some people...

JQ I believe will do well to Southern Europe, in particular with the 78. The same aircraft that will deliver cost benefits to JQ should translate into attractive fares, coupled with a new aeroplane that will deliver on innovation and technology - I believe they'll do fine...

standard unit
31st Aug 2010, 11:40
People contemplating 24 hours on an aircraft take into account comfort and service.

Those travelling to Europe are not the same as those travelling on cheap holidays to Phuket, Bali or even Honolulu.

As others have mentioned.

Second tier full service carrier or Jetstar ???

Come on, it's a no brainer.

I don't think their are going to be enough "wood ducks" out there wanting to go to Europe.

T-Vasis
31st Aug 2010, 12:10
SU - lets look at the current 330 as an example - you mention "comfort and service". So, the 330 has 32 inches of pitch and leather seats in a 2 x 4 x 2 config. Against other carriers that operate today, please tell me how that is not competitive? That is a standard config with most airlines, world-wide and is certainly better then a 3 x 4 x 3 config aka no middle seat on the sides...

You cannot argue that the current JQ INT 330 does not offer a level of "comfort' that isn't comparable to other airlines operating internationally?

With regards to "service", can you be more specific. Are you talking 'inclusive offering' i.e. meals? IFE? well, not all airlines have seat-back - JQ enables the customer to 'rent' a device (soon to be iPad which surpasses many existing seat-back offerings around the world) at a low $10...I know what I would prefer. And not all carriers offer 'AVOD'...

JQ offers 'mainscreen' IFE which is not at a cost to anyone - comparable to other airlines...Look at Lufthansa. Not all of their long-haul fleet offer seat-back, and they would be considered a 'full service carrier'...

With regards to meals and drinks; well, what happens if you experience poor quality catering i.e. sub-standard meal that you dislike...does that make it okay because it was 'free'...What if you fare was $20 different. Was that meal worth the $20?

Being a full service carrier, does not automatically translate into a wonderful experience or journey...

I'm only trying to be objective here.

standard unit
31st Aug 2010, 12:42
I guess time will tell.

It seems that QF management are [still] hell bent on destroying Qantas to prove themselves right about Jetstar..........

T-Vasis
31st Aug 2010, 13:22
SU - I am not sure Qantas are 'destroying themselves'. Premium traffic is back to pre-GFC levels, yields across INT and DOM are on the incline, forward bookings are strong and Qantas is seeing very healthy SF on both SH and LH businesses.

In addition, Qantas is improving its product and end-to-end experience across it's business that will deliver key advantages/benefits over competitors and certainly position Qantas as a high-tier carrier.

The Jetstar strategy appears to be delivering well for the group as evidenced by the continued growth and performance of this business for the market Jetstar was created to serve.

standard unit
31st Aug 2010, 13:36
Did you just cut and paste all that ?

T-Vasis
31st Aug 2010, 13:41
No mate, does it sound that way? That's not the intention...

Sunfish
31st Aug 2010, 20:23
Son needed to get to Majorca for his professional yachting. Flew Singapore/Swissair via Singapore to Zurich then Swissair to Palma. Raved about the flight because Singapore to Zurich was Singapore Airlines A380 codeshare. Around $1200 one way from memory.

All European travel for last Four months via Eurail pass. One short flight to Dublin. He is now working in Edinburgh. Home run this month to Hong Kong via ??? and then QF, I think, from Hong Kong direct to Melbourne. Around $1100 one way.

Brother goes to Europe via either Bangkok (Royal Thai), Singapore, Etihad or Emirates and changes aircraft in Dubhai, etc. direct to Venice, Rome, Amsterdam, Berlin, Barcelona, etc. Travel into/out of UK is never via Heathrow and via Eurostar if London. At all costs we avoid changing aircraft and connecting flights at Heathrow.

At all costs we now avoid Qantas and that 20+ hour flight to Heathrow hell, and any return flight that is not direct to Melbourne. Qantas lost us years ago and they will have to do a lot better to ever get us back....

jj232
31st Aug 2010, 23:22
I concur with Sunfish 100%, Flew with Singapore Airlines in June to Athens, was there in a little over 19 hours from departure Sydney!!!! Fanatstic airline, fantastic service and the connections to different cities in Europe are second to none. I paided $600 more than Emirates but worth every cent. Don't even look at QANTAS these days as price is normally the most expensive and takes much longer to get to where I want to go.

LetsGoRated
1st Sep 2010, 00:30
At all costs we now avoid Qantas and that 20+ hour flight to Heathrow hell, and any return flight that is not direct to Melbourne. Qantas lost us years ago and they will have to do a lot better to ever get us back.... :yuk:

Yeah, great idea Sunfish. Why not avoid Qantas at all costs. Cause its all about the fluffy little trinkets in the cabin. Why don't you do yourself a favour and assemble a technical perspective. When my family board a QF ship, I am never concerned as to their safety because I know the guys up the front ARE quality!! Cannot say the same ref a couple of your above mentioned carriers....but then again, I am taking a technical perspective.

Regards

Ka.Boom
1st Sep 2010, 01:07
Read "The Men Who Killed Qantas"
Qantas safety record is not that perfect either.
Qantas has had a lot of plane(sic) good luck.
Particularly during Scrotum Faces tenure.
Not taking on Emirates in their back yard is just pure folly

astroboy55
1st Sep 2010, 01:40
The Jetstar strategy appears to be delivering well for the group as evidenced by the continued growth and performance of this business for the market Jetstar was created to serve.

Aaahhh...... From the financials, and commentaries, whilst they made a good profit over the 12 months, they only made 10mil in the last 6 months, and lost money in the last 3.....

So what do they do? Expand it some more!!!

ANCDU
1st Sep 2010, 01:42
"The Men who Killed Qantas" was pretty light reading, obviously written by someone who had a chip on their shoulder, as it constantly went over the old "qantas has crashed" idea ad nauseum. Singapore and Emirates have had some pretty bad accidents recently as well, and fingers crossed no more occur for anyone. i must admit the parts about GD and the takeover bit was interesting reading, for the life of me i cant believe there wasn't some kind of legal action against Qantas management....but thats another story.

I read recently that Qantas was asked to expand with its relationship with Ethiad in a similar situation situation than Vaus has announce, but turned the offer down. Good idea, probably not. Is interesting i noticed the other day Qantas still has a lot of codeshare flights with Ethiad.

It seems a national sport to give Qantas a kick in the guts whenever we can....and we are getting pretty good at it.:}

Bad Hat Harry
1st Sep 2010, 02:44
Australians once were very proud of Qantas-----With good reason.Australians have been let down badly.The emotional connection has been broken.This business regarding the Middle East is typical.No decision or poor decisions.The ME is a fantastic way for Aussies to fly to Europe---Athens Rome Berlin Madrid Copenhagen are all within striking distance.Best of all is no flying to LHR----what a nightmare that joint is.
Singapore Airport is yesterdays toast----its stale

Balthazar_777
1st Sep 2010, 06:07
Hi Bad Hat,

I dont disagree that the Australian emotional connection with Qantas was lost when it privatised and became just another business.:D

I also agree that exploring other routing options and diversifying the network can make great sense.:D

BUT, having spent many an hour at Abu Dhabi's airport, i have to say that it is just an old crappy middle east airport. :uhoh:

If Changi is old toast, than Abu Dhabi is what the toast becomes after you eat it - Shit.:eek:

Cheers,
Balthazar_777;)

skybed
1st Sep 2010, 06:37
Singapore still is one of the leading airports. best of all is a stop over and enjoy the hotels, culinary and shopping experience at an reasonable price. middle east charges like a roaring b....
as for QF its lost its way under GD big time. there is no longer a vision and as pointed out on a number of occassions there is no network left to europa and lots of old planes. let alone different products on offer. nothing like consistancy-NOT:ugh::yuk:

another superlame
1st Sep 2010, 07:10
You are right about giving QF a kick in the guts being a national past time. And I for one say that they have deserved most of what they get. Especially during Scrotums tenure.

But when the sh1t hits the fan somewhere in the world and aussies need to get home, they all come crying to Qantas. Even if the ticket they hold is for another airline. And more often than not Qantas does help these people. This is something they do well and they still do it.

While they still offer this sort of service then I believe there is still life in the company.

Maybe now JB is at VB he will take this piece of QF with him, not many airlines do this for anyone.

Having said all this I do wish they would pour more into QF rather than letting them rest on their laurels. Things have changed since Geoff and Maggie and co p1ssed off but there still loads of things that can be improved.

T-Vasis
1st Sep 2010, 07:42
It is important to note that it is not as simple as Qantas just deciding to operate to a European destination, on the terms that it chooses.

Qantas has to deal with a number of bilateral constraints which restrict the opportunity for Qantas to compete freely with other carriers.

A great example of this is Paris - Qantas is unable to secure daily rights into Paris between Singapore and Paris, yet SQ and AF have daily services (as the bilateral is between the two states). Qantas can only operate thrice weekly - this is not enough to deliver a sustainable route for Qantas. It’s unattractive to the premium customer which is a key component for Qantas considering most of the other traffic is VFR and low yield. The Qantas service is not attractive to the business customer (driven by schedule convenience) who is providing the yield Qantas need to deliver an appropriate return - there are minimum requirements in return that must be achieved for the route to be worth it, otherwise it makes better business sense for Qantas to deploy assets somewhere else where they’ll deliver a better return.

Yet Australia offers Qantas competitors an open and liberal framework that allows just about unlimited capacity and frequency into Australia - so for the hub operator like SQ, they capatalise on traffic AUS/SIN/PAR vv versus Qantas who can only offer twice weekly - who is the premium punter going to choose?

Another example is China - Qantas has been lobbying to allow rights from China on to London, however cannot secure rights between China and London.

The same applies for the Middle East - Qantas can get unlimited capacity to the Middle East, but cannot obtain any rights from the Middle East to London. Operating only to/from the ME will not deliver any quality returns to Qantas. Firstly the market is well saturated with capacity and a pricing structure that Qantas would struggle to compete with, in particular with airlines who's Governments or private ownership, may have bigger 'agendas' then just offering air services between the two points, in addition Qantas is competing with airlines who are not even operating profitably i.e. Etihad yet would have to price accordingly to compete, delivering poor yield return to Qantas.

Traffic to ME is primarily European traffic - VFR and holiday makers are very limited as the Middle East is primarily a stop-over for most. With Qantas not able to operate onwards, and only truly carrying limited traffic that go to the ME, what viability could exists when you can fly an Arab airline and continue on to Europe, as these airlines offer a very extensive European network - the same principle will apply to the premium/business customer - they're not going to choose Qantas when the choice of ample schedule and network is delivered by multiple Arab airlines...

Again, Australia being so liberal, ME airlines can dump tonnes of capacity into AUS and beyond i.e. NZ and deliver to the customer, through effective hub/spoke operations, seamless travel into/out of Europe at a cost competitive position.

The playing field is not balanced and that's the reality of it...

Our geographical location further affects Qantas competitive opportunities - where as the hubs, who by way of natural technical limitations take advantage of the requirements for passengers and airlines to hub...

If aircraft could fly direct to Europe from AUS vv, we'd see a very different competitive landscape...

DrPepz
1st Sep 2010, 08:18
As Jetstar Asia is technically a Singapore airline with Singapore AOC and access to Singapore's air traffic rights, QF can use this vehicle to fly all over Europe (Singapore has unlimited 3rd and 4th freedoms with all European countries except France and Germany I think - but since Singapore has signed open skies agreements with nearly all EU countries, SIN-EU open skies isn't too far off the agenda)

Because JQ has no rights to fly between Singapore and NZ, 3K is the designated Singaporean carrier to fly this route, as SIN and NZ have full open skies.

I suspect SQ will stop FCO and ATH once 3K starts those services. They've languished at 3 weekly for the past 25 years.

SQ is now being kept on their toes because they must share rights with JQ. Eg they had to reinstate the morning flights to Chennai and Bangalore using Silk Air, if not they would have lost those slots and they could have been reassigned to 3K.

sandpit
1st Sep 2010, 08:36
Balthazar - SQ use Terminal 1 at AUH which is indeed pretty $hitty. EY primarily use Terminal 3 which is brand new & absolutely fine - probably still not quite as good as Changi though :ok:

T-Vasis - QF have the right to fly through the UAE to where ever they want, with the restriction being the bilateral agreement between Australia and the ultimate destination (2nd freedom of the Air). As of today, up to 105 services a week (15 per day - see IASC) could carry traffic between Australia and the UAE. There MAY be restrictions in carrying traffic between the UAE and the European destination, but I do not think it would be from the UAE (although I could be wrong - they claim open skies and frankly need all the visitors they can get!), but there might be an objection from the other country (e.g. France or Greece may have a problem with QF carrying DXB-CDG or DXB-ATH pax). That would depend on each bilateral agreement. As 90+% of Australia-UAE traffic is in transit, QF could hub through Dubai or Abu Dhabi IF THEY CHOSE TO. The limited number actually getting off in the UAE should not materially affect the economics of continuing through to Europe and could be considered cream. They just choose to serve their markets through different hubs and then moan about it:=

jj232 - I am no fan of EK, but if SQ offer more and better connections to Europe than EK I would be very surprised! A service comparison - now thats a different story:ok:

Sunfish
1st Sep 2010, 11:17
Yeah, great idea Sunfish. Why not avoid Qantas at all costs. Cause its all about the fluffy little trinkets in the cabin. Why don't you do yourself a favour and assemble a technical perspective. When my family board a QF ship, I am never concerned as to their safety because I know the guys up the front ARE quality!! Cannot say the same ref a couple of your above mentioned carriers....but then again, I am taking a technical perspective.

Regards


trouble is, I used to work for AN engineering division. and I'm aware of the deterioration in QF standards referenced in PPrune.

Stick QF up your backside, it's running on its reputation and nothing else.

The rot set in around 1986.

Nobody will fly QF internationally unless they have no choice, unless they are Sydney siders.

T-Vasis
1st Sep 2010, 11:32
Singapore Airport is yesterdays toast----its stale

But it has Singapore's tallest slide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc9EuwKq96w&feature=player_embedded)...:}

Nobody will fly QF internationally unless they have no choice, unless they are Sydney siders.

Certainly not reflective based on QF's stats (passengers carried/seat factors)...And Australians have ample choices...more than enough...

Ka.Boom
1st Sep 2010, 11:55
How many airlines have reduced capacity over the last 12 months?
Friends from Germany couldnt get a seat to Oz.They tried for 6 weeks and price was not a consideration they just wanted to get here.
How did they get here?
Berlin,JoBurg Sydney.
Capacity is so tight there is a bum on every seat and it aint gonna change anytime soon.Thats why QF figures look so good
Any way I digress Qantas management have not got a clue on how to run an airline.Its all about reducing costs and increasing bonuses.It takes real nouse to be innovative with revenue.
Joyce has been handed the poison chalice
Qantas is about cost reduction not about growing revenue or profit
Look at the network reduction and the age of the fleet.
767s are a great aircraft but most of Qfs are around 25 years old
Spend money on the hard product it needs it

T-Vasis
1st Sep 2010, 12:58
Ka Boom - with respect, it's not Qantas's fault the 78's are delayed. Remember, they'd be flying by now and Qantas would be phasing out their ageing 76's. Also, considering a number of other airlines around the world, fleet age isn't that bad...there are plenty of legacy airlines operating some seriously old hull's

With regards to network reduction; do you believe it makes business sense to operate on markets where the return either below acceptable or not at all? I would be terribly concerned as a shareholder if Qantas was operating routes that were not delivering a return - Qantas would be better off redeploying on to markets where they can deliver returns...It's a sad fact, but you just cannot deliver returns on every market (and FCO was a good example), just look at V...pulling out of HKT/JNB etc, why, because they cannot delivery an appropriate return. Does that make V a bad business? Because technically that equates to network reductions in the same light you've applied to Qantas...Absolutely not.

Qantas has a cost base and it needs to work within that cost base. One way of reducing that cost based in achieving cost reductions and then by delivering a lower cost base, thin, marginal markets may become viable and enable Qantas to operate and compete...

Qantas is investing in its product - you're very aware of the 744 refits, improvements with lounges network-wide, innovative technologies with new gen check-in as well as a number of other investment programs to improve the product and deliver a competitive business for consumers.

At the end of the day, Qantas is still rated as a high-tier operator and this is supported by their position in the top 10 airlines globally as well as winners with their Y+ product (Skytrax) and considering the numbers of operators out there, Qantas is not too bad at all...

Qantas is still an innovator and delivers a product that sits in the the top bracket of carriers globally - you cannot deny that. Sure, there is some lag in some areas i.e. a number of ageing fleet types, but Qantas has committed to fleet investment and that's quite obvious as per the order books for both short-haul and long-haul.

And if you have a chance to see the MPS scores for Qantas, you'd be surprised to see how well they rate and are received by customers.

sandpit
1st Sep 2010, 13:30
Qantas is still an innovator and delivers a product that sits in the the top bracket of carriers globally

Must be a big bracket then

T-Vasis
1st Sep 2010, 14:09
Sandpit - there are some 200 + international schedule airlines alone (IATA members).

Whilst Qantas continues to maintain its position in the top 10 global airlines (refer to Skytrax awards - 18 million passengers surveyed), the carrier undoubtedly is considered in the 'top bracket' of global carriers. And as I understand it, pipped EK in the 2010 awards at number seven, whilst also taking the best Y+ award?

At the end of the day, it's about the end-to-end experience for the consumer and Qantas seems to be delivering this at a high level as evidenced by their ranking.

Keg
1st Sep 2010, 14:16
767s are a great aircraft but most of Qfs are around 25 years old.

We don't have any that are 25 years old. We got OGA in '88 (30 Aug according to the docs) so it's just turned 22. OGV we got in 2000. First 13 aircraft arrived from 88 to '92. The rest of them turned up from '94 to 2000.

It would have been great had the 787s arrived on time!

I suspect there is a bit of 'tall poppy syndrome' with QF. It's routinely ranked highly on world standards and the feedback from those that fly is generally high. I suspect sometimes that the criticism often comes from those who haven't flown with us for quite a while.

Sunfish
1st Sep 2010, 18:38
T Vasis:

Ka Boom - with respect, it's not Qantas's fault the 78's are delayed.
Remember, they'd be flying by now and Qantas would be phasing out their ageing 76's. Also, considering a number of other airlines around the world, fleet age isn't that bad...there are plenty of legacy airlines operating some seriously old hull's

With regards to network reduction; do you believe it makes business sense to operate on markets where the return either below acceptable or not at all? I would be terribly concerned as a shareholder if Qantas was operating routes that were not delivering a return - Qantas would be better off redeploying on to markets where they can deliver returns...It's a sad fact, but you just cannot deliver returns on every market (and FCO was a good example), just look at V...pulling out of HKT/JNB etc, why, because they cannot delivery an appropriate return. Does that make V a bad business? Because technically that equates to network reductions in the same light you've applied to Qantas...Absolutely not.

Qantas has a cost base and it needs to work within that cost base. One way of reducing that cost based in achieving cost reductions and then by delivering a lower cost base, thin, marginal markets may become viable and enable Qantas to operate and compete...

Qantas is investing in its product - you're very aware of the 744 refits, improvements with lounges network-wide, innovative technologies with new gen check-in as well as a number of other investment programs to improve the product and deliver a competitive business for consumers.

At the end of the day, Qantas is still rated as a high-tier operator and this is supported by their position in the top 10 airlines globally as well as winners with their Y+ product (Skytrax) and considering the numbers of operators out there, Qantas is not too bad at all...

Qantas is still an innovator and delivers a product that sits in the the top bracket of carriers globally - you cannot deny that. Sure, there is some lag in some areas i.e. a number of ageing fleet types, but Qantas has committed to fleet investment and that's quite obvious as per the order books for both short-haul and long-haul.

And if you have a chance to see the MPS scores for Qantas, you'd be surprised to see how well they rate and are received by customers.


1. 787 - There is this concept called "technical risk", which is first cousin of commercial risk and sovereign risk, pity there is no one on the QF Board, then or now, with any technical experience of airlines.

2. The lovely concept of "Acceptable return"! Acceptable to who? I much prefer the concept of "market rate". If QF cannot make a profit on something, then how about cutting down the number of bloated management levels, starting with getting rid of the notion of "The Qantas Group" and the associated horde of "Group General Managers?". Then get the head office out of central Sydney, cutting staff as you go, and put it in a Tin shed as close as possible to the airport.

3. The idea that QF has a "premium business class product" is laughable. I tried that to LAX around Ten years ago and the service and experience was execrable - and expensive. Only a first time business traveler would consider QF.

QF have had excrable management for at least the last Ten years - the entire Dixon reign, and there is no sign of any change.

To put it another way, T Vasis, the first sign of positive change at QF would be abandoning the concept of "Acceptable return" and competing on quality of service and price, like everyone else does. Air travel is now a commodity.

The idea that the "carriage trade", sorry, "premium business class travelers" can be mined to subsidies the rest of your operation, sorry, I mean generate an "acceptable return", is lethally stupid because it exposes your shareholders to risk if that single market segment is all that is holding you in profit. The same idea, as it percolates through layers of management, also devalues and therefore de emphasizes the economy travel experience.

Lets face it, the only thing keeping QF afloat is its ability to lobby the Federal Government and keep out competition.

Keg
1st Sep 2010, 21:36
The idea that QF has a "premium business class product" is laughable. I tried that to LAX around Ten years ago and the service and experience was execrable - and expensive.

With respect Sunfish, more than a few things have changed in the last decade in the J class offering. :ugh:

Sunfish
1st Sep 2010, 22:34
Keg:

With respect Sunfish, more than a few things have changed in the last decade in the J class offering.

With respect, I'm not paying $7000 to find out if it has changed.

My policy since then was to offer employees a choice for international travel, go business class, do your work and return ASAP, or go economy and take a few days R & R at your destination and when you return before I see your ugly face again, and not out of annual leave either. Everyone decided that the latter policy was better.

rammel
1st Sep 2010, 23:23
Have to agree with Keg here. J Class has changed a lot over the last 10 years. Jetstar Star Class is similar to what J Class 10 years ago was like. If you're flying accross the Pacific in J, out of UA, DL and QF direct Aust to USA, I know who I'd choose. In fact I'd rather go Y class on QF than Y class on these other two. I can't comment on V Aus as I've never flown on them.

I think QF has been not too much indecisive over the last few years, just stagnat. Hopefully this will change when the 787 arrives in numbers, will just have to wait and see on that front.

watch your6
1st Sep 2010, 23:49
Been on a 767 to HNL lately?
J/C is woeful
Been to PER ex NRT lately?
J/C is woeful
These a/c should not be flying internationally without a cabin revamp
Qantas charges a premium for these seats and its a 90s product
Last time I was on a 747 it was to NRT and bits of the trim were hanging from the ceiling.Not a good look
How QF stays in the top 10 with Skytrax is one of life's great mysteries

Tankengine
2nd Sep 2010, 00:28
A330 on the NRT/PER run from next roster. Constant rumours re MNL and HNL.
The days of the 767 on international routes numbered.:ok:

Taildragger67
2nd Sep 2010, 03:17
Keg,

We don't have any that are 25 years old. We got OGA in '88 (30 Aug according to the docs) so it's just turned 22. OGV we got in 2000. First 13 aircraft arrived from 88 to '92. The rest of them turned up from '94 to 2000.

Just out of interest, does that include the BA airframes? How old are those hulls?

Personally, I'm never disappointed to see a 76 at my gate. Fine aircraft. But then, I tend to sleep and read on an aircraft so bells & whistles don't really float my boat.

73to91
2nd Sep 2010, 03:46
Yep been to HNL and the aircraft like J class was looking very tired and aged. Flew Y but was surprised with the look of J class when walking through. Had difficult time placing carry on bag in overhead locker. Returned home in Star Class on JQ - and yes, it also reminded me of how QF J class was 10 years ago but I could use the overhead for same bag with room to spare.

Perhaps Sunfish needs to be educated with what QF do offer on the A380 in both 1st and J class - have been informed that they have a 'no bragging' policy and it is working well with pax flocking to the service, if only they had the new Boeings as well !

With regards to QF's Indecisive nature - surely it was started by and continued under the watch of GD and MJ in the Chair? etc. I as an outsider, could never understand why:
· JQ were 'gifted' new aircraft for their international operations when perhaps the AO 767's could have done the trick !!
· QF management allowed old and tired looking interiors operate against the startup with their new aircraft, i.e. HNL !!
· QF management put them up against QF AT ALL i.e. HNL !!
· JQ just didn't stick to the 8 hour destinations that AO did, e.g. Bali and 'new' destinations e.g. Phuket !!
· QF management consider Rome as a destination suitable for JQ and not QF !!
· QF management allowed the livery to be approved without any forward thinking regarding conversion to QF livery, i.e. Look at V Aus, the white body of QF and the tail that could have been Jet 'stars' !!

piston broke again
2nd Sep 2010, 07:23
T-Vasis, I'd say you're looking through one-eyed glasses. Every post is just QF propaganda.

QF are fine for choosing to go through Singapore and it makes sense, given the great circle route from Sydney to the UK inches past singa's. Good airport, economy of scale is there for hub operations etc etc. But from there...if you want to travel to anywhere else in Europe, QF have dropped the ball. And I think that's what everyone else is saying, and BA codeshare?? please Not everyone wants to fly low cost carrier in JQ.

Makes sense for V and Etihad to join together. Daily services, pooling of funds, plus exposure to each others network. More importantly for V tho, it opens up Europe to Australia and brings in Velocity points for flyers, something QF's FF program didn't want to share with Etihad. It's QF's big earner so maybe they didn't want to open it up, whereas Velocity is on the up so maybe less risk, who knows.

Either way it makes sense for both carriers...

Just a bit less propaganda thanks T-V! Rant over...

blueloo
2nd Sep 2010, 07:42
A330 on the NRT/PER run from next roster

With pax loads in the vicinity of 120 - I would have thought cancelling the route was more likely than upping it to a 330.

Only freight keeps it going.....

skybed
2nd Sep 2010, 09:05
idea, but he did not get the job and his vision.
He wanted to fly the B777LR from Lhr to Per. that would have giving the middle east carriers a run for their money. unfortunatly GD shut him down.:ugh:

T-Vasis
2nd Sep 2010, 10:31
PBA - I only express the view as I was once exposed to the economics working in commercial areas of the business.

As for FCO - that was losing money for years. The VFR traffic did not deliver a return, nor did the J traffic offset the poor performance down the back...

JQ's lower cost base will do that.

That's the bottom line...

watch your6 - re your post on the QF767's on NRT, MNL and HNL etc - what do you propose QF does? The 78's are not here yet. Should they lease additional 330's? That might prove costly versus running a product that might be comparable to the competition currently deployed on those markets. What's Hawaiians 76's J product like etc.

Remember, the 78 delays have disrupted QF's fleet renewal program to no end...

Sunfish - Qantas is a business, and a business needs to deliver returns, in particular to shareholders. As a shareholder, I'm not impressed that I will not receive a dividend payment. Where is my return on this investment? I've already lost money in the value of my shares and now I won't see a return - I don't think that is good enough. And Qantas management has to consider that when it determines what an ‘acceptable return’ to the business is. Qantas needs to maintain its investment grade rating, which it has done so to-date. Without investment, you cannot survive on operating cash-flow alone...Qantas is not meeting its cost of capital currently - that concerns me...

You said Qantas should be competing on quality service and price? I am afraid that is poor business acumen. You can deliver all of that and run a loss (think Etihad). I don't think as an investor it is acceptable for Qantas to run at a loss, even if the 'quality of service' and/or 'price' is good. And I am sorry, but other publicly listed airlines who don't rely on governments or private equity to fund their operation operate in that manner, otherwise why would V withdraw from HKT and JNB? They can offer quality of service and price - how dare they decide to exit because these routes are not sustainable...

And really, Australia is an open playing field. Anyone can come in and just about to what they like, including starting their own airline. Remember, any US carrier can operate to AUS, but they choose not to. If it is so lucrative, why are they not here in droves?

This country is very liberal and 4 out of 5 seats for international traffic is on other carriers than Qantas. Qantas only has about 20 odd percent market share internationally these days - I am sorry, but that is not market dominance and Qantas competes with these carriers who enjoy a number of operational and commercial benefits not available to Qantas, an end-of-the-line operator.

Don't even start me on the ridiculous amount of corporate tax Qantas pay's...

With regards to the J class product which you believe is sub-standard - again, the data does not dictate that. MPS scores and the 19 million passengers reviewed in Skytrax survey's, determined the Qantas product is up-to-scratch, including Y+ as the best Y+. And the fact is, in particular with Skybed 2 on the A380, it is a great product and certainly leaves a number of other carriers for dead. I am not sure if you've flown on it recently and/or experienced a number of other carriers - I've flown J class on approx six different airlines including Qantas in the last two years and whilst I did not consider it the best (based on my preferences), it was certainly in the top three. As with every airline cabin - there are pro's and con's. You're never going to be 100% satisfied as everyone has their opinion on what should/could have been done to the product to suit their needs etc...

qfcabin
2nd Sep 2010, 12:08
I've been on here for quite a few years, and mostly keep my head down. But Sunfish has , in that time, never missed a chance to slam QF.
No doubt he has had justification ocasionally,but it becomes tedious at best, when most of his posts are attacking QF.
God man, if you dislike them so much , go away..leave them alone!
Travel elsewhere, and sell your shares.
Hatred for it's own reason is unhealthy, at best!

MyerFlyer
2nd Sep 2010, 14:23
A330 on the NRT/PER run from next roster. Constant rumours re MNL and HNL.

A330 on PER-NRT-PER from when?? The schedules show B763 for at least the next 12 months.

FYI all MNL flights are A330 from Nov onwards.

Thanks

Sunfish
2nd Sep 2010, 22:36
TV:

Sunfish - Qantas is a business, and a business needs to deliver returns, in particular to shareholders. As a shareholder, I'm not impressed that I will not receive a dividend payment. Where is my return on this investment? I've already lost money in the value of my shares and now I won't see a return - I don't think that is good enough. And Qantas management has to consider that when it determines what an ‘acceptable return’ to the business is. Qantas needs to maintain its investment grade rating, which it has done so to-date. Without investment, you cannot survive on operating cash-flow alone...Qantas is not meeting its cost of capital currently - that concerns me...

You said Qantas should be competing on quality service and price? I am afraid that is poor business acumen. You can deliver all of that and run a loss (think Etihad). I don't think as an investor it is acceptable for Qantas to run at a loss, even if the 'quality of service' and/or 'price' is good. And I am sorry, but other publicly listed airlines who don't rely on governments or private equity to fund their operation operate in that manner, otherwise why would V withdraw from HKT and JNB? They can offer quality of service and price - how dare they decide to exit because these routes are not sustainable...

And really, Australia is an open playing field. Anyone can come in and just about to what they like, including starting their own airline. Remember, any US carrier can operate to AUS, but they choose not to. If it is so lucrative, why are they not here in droves?

This country is very liberal and 4 out of 5 seats for international traffic is on other carriers than Qantas. Qantas only has about 20 odd percent market share internationally these days - I am sorry, but that is not market dominance and Qantas competes with these carriers who enjoy a number of operational and commercial benefits not available to Qantas, an end-of-the-line operator.

Don't even start me on the ridiculous amount of corporate tax Qantas pay's...

With regards to the J class product which you believe is sub-standard - again, the data does not dictate that. MPS scores and the 19 million passengers reviewed in Skytrax survey's, determined the Qantas product is up-to-scratch, including Y+ as the best Y+. And the fact is, in particular with Skybed 2 on the A380, it is a great product and certainly leaves a number of other carriers for dead. I am not sure if you've flown on it recently and/or experienced a number of other carriers - I've flown J class on approx six different airlines including Qantas in the last two years and whilst I did not consider it the best (based on my preferences), it was certainly in the top three. As with every airline cabin - there are pro's and con's. You're never going to be 100% satisfied as everyone has their opinion on what should/could have been done to the product to suit their needs etc...

Taking your points one by one:

1. Yes, Qantas is a business. A highly inefficient business that has relied on the power of the "Chairmans Lounge" to lobby Governments for Forty years to protect it. It has engaged in the most egregious rent seeking behaviour for years, let alone the attempted privatisation.

The revenue QF makes is a direct function of bums on seats times price paid and what profit there may be belongs to the shareholders. It is they not Qantas who decide what the "acceptable" return is and the share price falls or rises until that level is reached, not the revenue. It is also the market, not Qantas, that decides if the shares are "investment grade" or not, and the travelling public are not required to give a rats fundament about your capital raising or cost of capital. That is a matter for your shareholders. This is basic capital markets theory. You have got it bass ackwards.

To put it another way, what you are suggesting is that as patronage falls, prices must rise. This line of thinking was immortalised years ago in a Harvard business school magazine article entitled: "The Thirty Seven Million dollar pair of shoes" which described this form of management behaviour.

What drives the QF revenue should be perceived value for money ie: quality of service, just like any other business. QF had that "value for money" reputation at least as late as 1990 in my opinion.

The other canard there is that "too big to fail" line implicit in your comments regarding a level playing field. Again, basic economic theory says that if someone is willing to sell you a quality product at below cost, then you are stupid not to take it. I used to lean towards QF being allowed a slight premium on the basis of national security, maintaining critical aerospace technologies and capabilities in Australia, but since QF declared war on its engineering workforce and outsourced every engineering function it can overseas, whats the point? Where are the 787 and A380's and their engines and rotables going to for heavy maintenance? Not here I think.

Then of course there is Qf's plan to outsource piloting to its Singaporean base on lower terms and conditions. SO where is QF's market differentiation now? Foreign built aircraft maintained by foreigners overseas and flown by foreign crews -- and we are supposed to line up and salute? Here a tip, outsource everything to Russia. Just get Aeroflot to paint their aircraft white with a Roo on the tail.

To put it another way, I think Government should reconsider whether supporting a national flag carrier like QF is still good economic sense. Open slather makes far more sense and lowers input costs for Australian businesses as well as maximises tourism income.


2. The reason nobody flies U.S. to Australia is that they know QF will be waiting here to gouge them for aircraft handling and maintenance. I know. Ansett was stopped by Peter Ables from challenging that little monopoly in 1983. I was the one suggesting it. I had letters of support from Pan AM(?), KLM and Lufthansa who dearly wanted to get out of QF's clutches. Etihad, Singapore, Thai, ANZ don't have this problem because they transit their own maintenance bases inside the old 24 hour MEL window.

If QF is losing market share, good. QF was told years ago by everyone NOT in NSW that we want direct flights to our overseas destinations without having to go through that Four hour hellhole in Sydney. You didn't listen, did you?


3. As for quality of service, I think Jetstar economy is your benchmark for that, not the A380. Once the novelty of the A380 has worn off, you can bet that the bean counters will close up seat pitches, cheese pare and try and screw yet more revenue out of them. You will do the same with the 787 in turn.


To summarise, I see no effort from QF to earn it's market share. The airline is still on the cost cutting, rent seeking, cheese paring, nickle and diming, path it was put on under Dixon or before. All it focuses on is costs, not on providing an excellent product for the average traveler, as the frustrations of all its staff, vented in Pprune from time to time, sadly testify.

Tankengine
3rd Sep 2010, 22:33
Hi Myerflyer,
You are correct, I had only just looked quickly at patterns for next roster, the PER and NRT on same trip but not direct [SYD/PER/MEL/SYD/NRT/SYD]:ugh:
MNL from Nov.:ok:

GlobalMaster
3rd Sep 2010, 23:38
Succinctly put Sunfish. As you suggest, long run 'choice' revolves around:

Continued ‘Government Support’ for the national flag carrier on the basis of national security, maintaining critical aerospace technologies and capabilities in Australia, and
‘Open Slather’ to lower input costs for Australian businesses and maximise tourism income.Is compelling arguments for both views.

Nevertheless, a real conundrum is in the making. Ie

Australia won’t retain critical aerospace technologies and capabilities if 787’s and A380's and their engines and rotable heavy maintenance goes offshore V Liberalisation outcomes [Jetstar Asia] designed to lower input costs and maximise tourism income will all but guarantee 787’s and A380's and their engines and rotable heavy maintenance goes offshore.
Tis time to buckle up. Jetstar Asia’s A330 ops to Melbourne is but the tip of an iceberg big enough to sink aircraft maintenance in Australia.