PDA

View Full Version : Jetstar 787's


Pages : [1] 2

goodonyamate
21st May 2013, 06:54
Apologies if this has been posted somewhere before....

From Crikey yesterday


Jetstar has not said when it will launch 787 services, or confirmed the route from inaugural route Singapore, where it will base a fleet of 14 787-8s.



Has this been confirmed by Jet*? What do the crew know of this? Are there any JQ people doing endorsements yet?

If true, what happens to the current 330 crew? Sad for oz aviation if the bastards get away with this one :eek:

Lookleft
21st May 2013, 06:57
Jetstar will need to base some 787's in Oz otherwise it will be too difficult to keep the management pilots current!

Ollie Onion
21st May 2013, 07:16
I heard that all initial Check and Training pilots have been assigned to the 787 and that they are ALL Melbourne based. A handful of pilots are currently undergoing training, also OZ based. So I would be very surprised if ALL the 787's are going to SIN. To be fair though, J* probably don't know yet themselves as QANTAS haven't told them :}

waren9
21st May 2013, 07:39
a couple of mgmt guys are rated.

a few of the initial checkers/trainers have been named and i guess they will be off to sin imminently for their ratings.

1st one shows up in sept and i guess there'll be a fair few proving flights and some domestic sectors for the gents to get their hands in before it goes intl.

The Green Goblin
21st May 2013, 08:20
Any existing widebody Pilot gets a slot in their existing base.

The additional 3 will go where the company will get the best return. Probably Qantas :P

myshoutcaptain
21st May 2013, 09:26
The additional 3 will go where the company will get the best return

West Coast linking to Asia and ME.

T-Vasis
21st May 2013, 09:40
The Crikey piece is incorrect.

pull-up-terrain
21st May 2013, 10:16
Im predicting they will be used for routes to singapore to compete against scoot.

LeadSled
21st May 2013, 11:49
Folks,
According to Ben Sandilands, who is unusually well informed, as most of you know, the Jetstar 787's will be based in Singapore.

Whether you like it or not, the aircraft could be VH- ( I don't know what register they will be on) and still be based in Singapore and operate under CAAS administration.

There are multiple reasons to not base them in Australia, the important reasons are financial and regulatory --- crew costs as a relatively minor issue. Essentially, the sovereign risk of basing them in Australia is too great, NZ was geographically out of the question.

It will be interesting to see what actually transpires.

Tootle pip!!

mightyauster
21st May 2013, 12:08
Could operated much like the VAI B777's, hey Leadie? ie VH registered, Oz crew, but maintained offshore...

Sunfish
21st May 2013, 20:59
Does this mean that the B787s will be issued a Singapore C of A and be maintained under the singapore ICAO compliant maintenance system?

Does this preclude CASA involvement in B787 Airworthiness? If so what happens to all those free flights and visits to Seattle, St Louis, etc. for CASA staff?

FYSTI
21st May 2013, 21:38
the important reasons are financial and regulatory
Can you flesh out the details LeadSled?

Mobi LAME
21st May 2013, 22:23
The first one will be registered as VH-VKA

VH-Cheer Up
21st May 2013, 22:40
According to Ben Sandilands, who is unusually well informed, as most of you know, the Jetstar 787's will be based in Singapore.

He seems usually well informed.

Or do you mean the level of his information is unusually high when compared to other people/journalists?

kellykelpie
21st May 2013, 22:47
Whether you like it or not, the aircraft could be VH- ( I don't know what register they will be on) and still be based in Singapore and operate under CAAS administration.

Hi LeadSled, you can't be VH registered and be administered by CAAS. CAAS only regulate 9V aircraft. The Jetstar A330s in Sing are still administered by CASA.

Lookleft
21st May 2013, 22:55
you can't be VH registered and be administered by CAAS. CAAS only regulate 9V aircraft. The Jetstar A330s in Sing are still administered by CASA.


Exactly! Anyone who actually works for Jetstar would remember the debacle, one reason big bad Bruce is now selling face cream door to door in Asia, where he tried to put the 330's on the Singapore register. One of the first things they wanted was a proper crew rest so they all stayed on the VH register. I think Bruce thought it was going to be as simple as changing the rego of a car.

moa999
22nd May 2013, 02:01
Rather then Ben Sandilands, you might consider what Jayne Hrdlicka has been quoted as saying:

Late September delivery for first Jetstar 787 | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/2013/05/late-september-delivery-for-first-jetstar-787/)

Romulus
22nd May 2013, 02:09
Essentially, the sovereign risk of basing them in Australia is too great,

What sovereign risk is that? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

SIUYA
22nd May 2013, 04:26
kelliekelpie...

you can't be VH registered and be administered by CAAS.

What if there's an Article 83 bis agreement in place between Australia and Singapore? :confused:

See http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:OLDASSET::svPath=/corporat/policy/notices/,svFileName=CEO-PN008-2010.pdf

kellykelpie
22nd May 2013, 09:12
Interesting, but I can't see CAAS taking this on.

DrPepz
22nd May 2013, 09:37
Jetstar's A330 fleet ex SIN. Are they doing that well?

As of Mid July 2013

SINKIX: 4 weekly vs SQ 14 weekly
SINPEK: 3 weekly vs SQ 28 weekly (service started daily and gradually shrun)
SINMEL: 5 weekly vs SQ soon to be 28 weekly and QF apparently flying empty planes to Singapore now without the Europe feed, flying SINMELSIN at the same timing as JQ. JQ's SINMEL also started off daily and has shrunk to 5 weekly
SINAKL: 3 weekly vs SQ 14 weekly. Service also started off daily and shrunk

Total Weekly Services ex SIN: 15

Scoot as of Mid July 2013

SINBKK 7x weekly
SINSYD 7x weekly
SINOOL 5x weekly
SINTPEICN 3x weekly
SINTPENRT 7x weekly
SIN-Tianjin 4x weekly
SIN-Shenyang-Qingdao 3x weekly
SIN-Nanjing 3x weekly

Total Weekly Services ex SIN: 39

Anecdotally, JQ's A330s ex SIN don't seem to be leaving full, and QF is struggling to fill the Australia-SIN flights.

Qantas commitment to Asia Business Travel - Page 2 - FlyerTalk Forums (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qantas-frequent-flyer/1467534-qantas-commitment-asia-business-travel-2.html)

(You can also check seat maps on KVS just before QF flights close for check in - many SIN flights wide open)

I do wonder if Jetstar will continue to operate widebodies ex SIN for much longer.

Does anyone know why CAAS has this crew rest area requirement for Jetstar's A330s? Eg do SQ's A330s and 772s flying 7 hour flights have a similar crew rest area?

ejectx3
23rd May 2013, 13:22
But jetstar will never compete directly against QF services! :(

Roller Merlin
24th May 2013, 03:12
JQ currently operate A330 sectors up to 9.5 hours with two crew only... No crew rest allowed! Longer augmented flights generously utilise a pax seat for rest as there is no dedicated facility.

DrPepz
24th May 2013, 04:27
JQ is flying SINAKL (which is a block time of 10 hours) with 2-man crew? Really?!

LeadSled
24th May 2013, 05:20
Hi LeadSled, you can't be VH registered and be administered by CAAS. CAAS only regulate 9V aircraft. The Jetstar A330s in Sing are still administered by CASA.

Folks,
I suggest you all acquaint yourselves with the meaning and terms of an ICAO 83bis agreement, something I have pointed out before, but it obviously has not "registered". The provisions for an 83bis agreement are covered in Australian aviation legislation.

Such agreements are quite common.

To use 83bis agreements has been a long term aim of the QF senior management, it seems to be a tradeoff of legislative constraints and financial issues versus the obvious operational cost advantages of dealing with CAAS ---- and not having to deal with a very dysfunctional, very unpredictable and very expensive CASA AU.

I should imagine that the fact that it shafts Australian unions is the icing on the cake, as far as the current QF board is concerned.

But, it ain't all about labor costs.

Re: Ben Sandilands, I do indeed mean he is unusually well informed, compared to most commentators, many of whom are uninformed. To say he is "usually" well informed implies that he is sometimes not well informed, an occurrence so rare that I can't recall an example, and I have known the man for many, many years. He is a wonderful example the old fashioned traditional journalist, not you modern "Media Studies" graduate.

Tootle pip!!

kellykelpie
24th May 2013, 07:41
That's great LeadSled. It might be covered by Australian legislation but is it covered by the Singapore regs? I find it very difficult to believe that CAAS would buy into regulating a VH registered aircraft, knowing them well.

DrPepz, would like your opinion here.

stainedpantystealer
24th May 2013, 09:11
SIN/AKL/SIN - is operated 3 crew by JQ (not 2!).

Lets not get carried away.

LeadSled
24th May 2013, 14:45
I find it very difficult to believe that CAAS would buy into regulating a VH registered aircraft,

KK,
Why would it be a problem for CAAS, they are a competent organisation, and genuinely ICAO compliant. Jetstar already has a substantial operation in Singapore, as we all know. Adding another bunch of aircraft would be no big deal for CAAS, and effectively it makes no difference where the aircraft are registered, any more than it makes a difference when non VH- aircraft are operated on an Australian AOC.

However, I did say in my original comments that I did not know on which register the JQ 787s would appear.

An 83bis agreement is part of the Chicago convention.

Tootle pip!!

waren9
25th May 2013, 00:23
woulda thought if the singaporeans wanted anything to do with it they wouldve granted an aoc

SIUYA
25th May 2013, 01:09
The AOC would already have to be in place w9..........the 83bis agreement would be intended to cover an aircraft from a non-Singaporean operator that was intended to be leased (operated) by a Singaporean AOC holder.

Article 83 bis
Transfer of certain functions and duties

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 12, 30, 31 and 32(a), when an aircraft registered in a contracting State is operated pursuant to an agreement for the lease, charter or interchange of the aircraft or any similar arrangement by an operator who has his principal place of business or, if he has no such place of business, his permanent residence in another contracting State, the State of registry may, by agreement with such other State, transfer to it all or part of its functions and duties as State of registry in respect of that aircraft under Articles 12, 30, 31, and 32(a). The State of registry shall be relieved of responsibility in respect of the functions and duties transferred.

CAAS AC AOC-8(1) covers the transfer of State of Registry responsibilities under 83bis agreements.

14.3 CAAS generally does not transfer its safety oversight responsibilities to other Authorities. However, CAAS may accept the transfer of State of Registry responsibilities from another Authority, if it deems it necessary to maintain effective oversight of the aircraft.

Given the recent (ongoing??) highly-publicised 'antics' of CASA, it would be surprising if CAAS did NOT insist on the transfer of State of Registry responsibilities from CASA (the other Authority) as a necessary precondition to maintain effective oversight of any VH-registered aircraft operated under a CAAS-approved 83 bis agreement.

Others may disagree though. :ok:

LeadSled
25th May 2013, 06:38
SIUYA,
I, for one, agree entirely with your comments.

I have been involved with a number of arrangements where regulatory authority has been transferred, these were all arrangements between FAA and UK CAA.

The one thing that usually applies is that the tech. crews have to have a license commensurate with the state of registration. When Qantas operated N- aircraft on its AOC, we all had to have FAA ATRs or CPLs. Before any of you start jumping up and down, CASA regularly issues appropriate licenses and ratings against foreign licenses, as an administrative exercise, as those around in '89 will well remember.

Tootle pip!!

SIUYA
25th May 2013, 07:11
LeadSled...

With the licences, if the AOC holder's flight crews did not hold Australian licences, CASA could also render valid FCLs issued by another Contracting State in accordance with para 1.2.2.1 of Annex 1.

I've also been involved in 83bis arrangements in the past - some were easy, but others were a nightmare.

DrPepz
25th May 2013, 07:38
CAAS accepted the Jetstar Asia A320s getting transferred from VH to 9V registration, so there is some predecence?

SIUYA
25th May 2013, 09:42
CAAS accepted the Jetstar Asia A320s getting transferred from VH to 9V registration, so there is some predecence?

You're comparing B787s to A320s here Dr. It's not that simple though.

If the A320s that were transferred from VH to 9V registrations were first-of-type on the 9V register, then there would be a 'sort of' precendence transferring B787s onto the 9V register if they were also first-of-type onto that register. Lot's of paperwork involved if that was the case.

But if they weren't first of type onto the register they're being transferred to, then its no big deal transferring a type from one register to another, providing the airworthiness paperwork is acceptable to the State of Registry that you are transferring the aircraft to (more or less, in Golden Book terms!).

But there's absolutely no need to transfer the registrations from VH to 9V registry under an 83bis arrangement, providing the CAAS is agreeable to the proposed arrangement.

As I've previously stated, this sort of thing isn't all that straightforward, so others may disagree with my interpretation. :ok:

training wheels
25th May 2013, 12:47
Just wondering then, if the aircraft are VH registered, and crews have CASA flight crew licenses, then are the flights operated under Australian Air Law with respect to flight duty and flight time limitations?

SIUYA
26th May 2013, 00:57
training wheels...

If the duties and functions normally attached to the State of Registry are transferred pursuant to Article 83 bis, the State of the Operator will be internationally responsible and liable for them and will implement them in accordance with its own laws and regulations.

Flight time, flight duty periods, duty periods and rest periods for fatigue management are covered under Annex 6 Part I:

For the purpose of managing fatigue, the State of the Operator shall establish regulations specifying the limitations applicable to the flight time, flight duty periods, duty periods and rest periods for flight crew members.

But if the crews of VH-registered aircraft are operating on CASA licences, my interpretation is that the existing (State of Registry-approved) FDTLs will apply, irrespective of any 83 bis agreement.

However, as previously stated, others may disagree. :ok:

LeadSled
27th May 2013, 05:29
SIUYA,
When we operated N registered aircraft on a UK AOC, we all had to have FAA licenses, but all provisions of the UK AOC applied, including FDT requirements.
At that time, FAA FDT rules would have been far more restrictive.
Tootle pip!!

SIUYA
27th May 2013, 09:22
LeadSled,

Yes, I think the point you make is correct, and that what I should have said is that the State of OPERATOR FDTLs would apply, irrespective of the VH registration or CASA licences.

I didn't completely RTFQ of training wheels' question, and assumed that the crews AND aircraft came from the same OPERATOR (lessee) of the VH-registered aircraft.

But............it doesn't necessarily follow that crews AND aircraft come from the same operator, so you're correct.

My bad! :{

These sort of arrangements can be bloody complex, and I'm happy to accept I stuffed up! :ok:

smiling monkey
18th Jun 2013, 06:56
This article suggests the 787s will be delivered end of September and operational in November. Any idea what international routes they will fly?

Would MEL-SIN be likely?

Australia's JetStar to get its first 787 in late September - ch-aviation.ch (http://www.ch-aviation.ch/portal/news/19567-australias-jetstar-to-get-its-first-787-in-late-september)

pull-up-terrain
18th Jun 2013, 07:47
Who is flying them?

jarden
18th Jun 2013, 09:22
They start out on domestic flying for crew training first before International flights begin.

Angle of Attack
18th Jun 2013, 12:27
I agree Domestic flying first then will expand...its a. CASA requirement..

stainedpantystealer
18th Jun 2013, 14:30
First lot of C&T Captains are rostered in July to go to Singapore for the endorsement (all oz based pilots).

Flaps_Five
30th Jun 2013, 09:05
Can anyone giveaway what date and route the first domestic commercial jetstar 787 flight would be? I would love to jump on it as paid passenger with the family.

Talk was Melbourne-Cairns, Sydney-Cairns Nov

UnderneathTheRadar
30th Jun 2013, 11:19
Full page ads from Boeing in today's papers congratulating Jetstar on their upcoming 787s

Oldmate
31st Jul 2013, 20:35
Any theories why the aircraft has not been painted yet, and why the rudder is white when all the other aircraft on the production line have livery on their rudders?

Iron Bar
31st Jul 2013, 21:12
One or two but they are fairly unlikely at this late stage. The rudders are usually
the first part painted. I believe they have to be painted and "balanced" prior to fitting. Perhaps not? Are you 100% on the current paint scheme?

Oldmate
31st Jul 2013, 21:33
Latest pic I can find of it, but its been moved from there now. http://m.flickr.com/photos/moonm/9319359132/lightbox/

Iron Bar
31st Jul 2013, 22:37
Interesting. Perhaps it will be flown to China or maybe Bangladesh for painting? Only the highest industrial and environmental standards.

"Next month, our orange star livery will be applied."

From JQ publicity in July. Some stickers perhaps?

fishers.ghost
31st Jul 2013, 22:48
Sydnet Caterers have been told that QF3/4 and QF 21/22 will be replaced by Jetstar.No QF metal to either of these destinations.
And yes this is a rumour network

Keg
31st Jul 2013, 23:04
As of six weeks ago, A330 was to replace 767 to HNL early next year with a view to go daily shortly thereafter. Maybe that's changed but that was from CEO, CEO international, and CFO.

OneDotLow
1st Aug 2013, 00:17
From Ben Sandilands blog 28/07 :
(The scuttlebutt around the traps is that Qantas will unveil a ‘big surprise’ after the federal election. A good one, let’s hope.)

So any guesses as to what this might be? Does it have anything to do with the unpainted state of the jets?

JQ 787's sold to a leasing company? QF have already substantially gained form the 787 program and they have not even had one delivered yet.

JQ 787's to be operated by a wet leasing organisation? Aside form the management guys, are there any crews actually in training for this jet which shows up in 6 weeks time? Yes, mid September is only 6 weeks away.

JQ 787s are no longer and they will be 'gifted' elsewhere in the organisation? Surely not...

JQ 787s are being flown to the paint shop in Malaysia, where they will get their very own individual shade of JQ silver applied to 'fit in' with the rest of the fleet.

Yes, it is a rumour network... ;) But it seems odd that this first 787 has been delayed in having its livery applied.

DirectAnywhere
1st Aug 2013, 00:26
One of the rumours doing the rounds is that the consultants referred to here

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/518685-qantas-senior-executives-face-scrutiny.html

were brought in to investigate the costs of shutting down QF International entirely. 500 million was the rumoured figure. If it happens, that is highly unlikely to be announced until after the federal election as it would be politically explosive.

Lookleft
1st Aug 2013, 00:52
Years ago when Kendell were rumoured to be getting the CBA 123 as a Metro replacement, a wise Captain said to an excited new hire F/O "When you can kick the tyres you know its arrived" Nothings changed in over 20 years when it comes to new aircraft.

Oldmate
1st Aug 2013, 02:06
Another interesting little twist to the story. Ex-Tiger CEO Andrew David was recruited by Jetstar last December as CEO longhaul operations to "run the 787".

This article refers: Tiger Australia CEO to change airlines, run 787s for Jetstar | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/12/06/outgoing-tiger-airways-ceo-to-run-787s-for-jetstar/)

Apparently in the last few weeks he has just been appointed CEO of Jetstar NZ & Japan businesses (can't find a reference, only rumour), which would seem a very strange move just before the aircraft he was meant to run arrives.

pull-up-terrain
1st Aug 2013, 02:35
QF 21/22 will be replaced by Jetstar.

It would be incredibly stupid for qf management to pull out of narita (even dumber than pulling out of Frankfurt and San Francisco). I have spent a lot of time in Narita throughout my career at qf and have flown business class on QF on that route every time i go there and business class is alway nearly full (even the months after the tsunami). When it comes to QF staff travel it has always been a struggle to get my family on QF21 as it is always full (even in economy). Once i was sitting next to a businessman from the Gold Coast and he prefers to fly from gold coast to Sydney with Virgin, then hop on board QF21 rather then sitting in Starclass on Jetstar that goes direct to Narita from the Gold Coast.

Iron Bar
1st Aug 2013, 03:06
Reference for Oldmate

"Andrew David will be taking on the role of Executive Director Japan and New Zealand"

Rumor confirmed

Oldmate
1st Aug 2013, 03:08
Thanks Iron Bar!

Keg
1st Aug 2013, 08:23
Aside form the management guys, are there any crews actually in training for this jet which shows up in 6 weeks time?

Spoke to a bloke in SIN a few weeks ago who was on his JQ 787 course. Didn't think to ask if he was management or not.

Mstr Caution
1st Aug 2013, 09:42
The JQ management guys have completed their 787 endorsements last week.

ASY68
10th Aug 2013, 02:15
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/wp-content/blogs.dir/10/files/2013/08/moonm-photo-Jestar-787-8.jpg

greenslopes
10th Aug 2013, 02:39
Heard Boeing is offering a mod to best deal with all the fires.....

A Chimney....

T-Vasis
10th Aug 2013, 05:40
Coming out of the paintshop (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.587512981292424.1073741853.144075565636170&type=3).

training wheels
10th Aug 2013, 14:29
Just curious as to what would be the normal pathway for Jetstar pilots to get on the 787 fleet? Will it be purely based on seniority? And if so, would this mean no chance for new recruits to start on the 787?

SOPS
10th Aug 2013, 18:53
Pity it's not in Qantas colours.

Iver
10th Aug 2013, 20:09
Agreed - Qantas obviously should have first had the 777 years ago and now should be the first to fly the OZ flag on the 787. Sadly not to be due to years and years of mismanagement and myopia in a fast-changing airline landscape...

Love the Jetstar paintscheme on the 787. Very well done. The 787 pilots will be justifiably proud of that bird. Is there any initial destination list for the 787 (first few destinations replacing the A330s)? Singapore, Bali and Honolulu?

Keg
10th Aug 2013, 23:03
Whats the bet that J* market heavily the 787 going to HNL. Of course on the same day you'll have QF passengers going there on the 767. Whilst the product isn't too different it speaks volumes that QF can continue to turn a profit with a 767. Imagine how much better we could be doing with the new metal and an upgraded product.

tenretni
10th Aug 2013, 23:37
Looks Good.

I bet there are plenty of Jetstar guys at full mast at the moment.

Meanwhile at the QF camp its viagra all around.

:O

2Plus
11th Aug 2013, 01:02
:yuk::yuk:

The The
11th Aug 2013, 01:35
But look, are they white engine nacelles? Still hope yet that sense will prevail.

goodonyamate
11th Aug 2013, 02:27
Is there any initial destination list for the 787

probably back to the hanger......

looks good, still jetstar product inside though.

swh
11th Aug 2013, 03:56
But look, are they white engine nacelles? Still hope yet that sense will prevail.



Boeing said engine nacelles are only available in white to maintain laminar flow, then BA got blue.

Mstr Caution
11th Aug 2013, 04:10
Keg

I actually applaud the arrival of JQ's 787's.

This will trigger the return of ex JQ A330's back to the Qantas mainline operation.

I'm sure your no doubt aware that internal QF group agreements disallow the same aircraft type to operate on the same city pair.

That's the reason why Qantas can't put an A330 on the HNL route until JQ are exclusively 787's on that route.

Have you ever wondered why an A330 hasnt been scheduled on the HNL route even with very high load factors.

I am of the opinion that the 787's to JQ first is nothing more than a marketing ploy and the byproduct also being reduced fuel costs.

If anything, sending the 787's to JQ first shows the resilience of the Qantas brand. Mainline B767's continue to fly to HNL full. If the QF International business truly was in terminal decline & with fuel it's major costs. The 787's would have gone to mainline first if it really needed turning around ASAP.

In the July edition of the JQ in flight magazine Jane Hrdlicka promotes the arrival of the JQ 787's as the beginning of a new era in inflight comfort.

Does anyone honestly believe being shoehorned into a JQ 787 as a comfortable experience.

I can assure you six months after the arrival of the 787 and the associated issues of introducing a new aircraft type. There will still be delays, no change to load factors and mainline charters to cover JQ unserviceabilities or cancelations to HNL. But QF will be able to send an A330.

MC

Lookleft
11th Aug 2013, 11:09
787 wont be going to HNL. Jetstar will be hanging onto 4 A330's to cover that flying.

Mstr Caution
11th Aug 2013, 12:36
As of July 2013 Jane Hrdlicka was stating JQ 787's to AKL, SIN, NRT & HNL.

OhSpareMe
11th Aug 2013, 18:25
]I'm sure your no doubt aware that internal QF group agreements disallow the same aircraft type to operate on the same city pair.

Really? Seems that someone hasn't got that memo. I have often operated SIN-MEL in a QF330 some 5 mins behind JQ8 - another A330

Mstr Caution
11th Aug 2013, 23:14
Oh spare me.

I concede you are correct.

Perhaps the internal agreements are being unwound since Hickeys arrival at international or have expired.

Hopefully sanity it's starting to prevail.

Lookleft
12th Aug 2013, 07:19
From what I've heard from various sources MC the first 787's don't have the legs to go to HNL with the same load and freight capacity as the 330. Maybe JH made her announcement before commercial understood that just because the nice aeroplane salesman says it will take so many people so many miles with so much freight they forgot to mention that it can't do it all at the same time!

Mstr Caution
12th Aug 2013, 09:16
Lookleft.

Maybe someone should tell Hrdlicka & marketing.

I just went back over the online version of the Jetstar inflight mag (July & August)

It definitely states the 787 to HNL and ALL JQ Longhaul destinations served by the 787 by 2015.

Romulus
12th Aug 2013, 09:28
From what I've heard from various sources MC the first 787's don't have the legs to go to HNL with the same load and freight capacity as the 330. Maybe JH made her announcement before commercial understood that just because the nice aeroplane salesman says it will take so many people so many miles with so much freight they forgot to mention that it can't do it all at the same time!

Maybe by announcing it, trying it. having it fall short they maximise their legal compensation?

happyfarm
13th Aug 2013, 10:51
From the qf presser today
"State of the art equipment, including a 787 flight simulator, will be installed at the group’s flight training centre in Airport West"

Does jetstar have a training facility at airport west or are they talking about the qantas group training facility?

UnderneathTheRadar
13th Aug 2013, 22:53
From the qf presser today
"State of the art equipment, including a 787 flight simulator, will be installed at the group’s flight training centre in Airport West"

Does jetstar have a training facility at airport west or are they talking about the qantas group training facility?

Did you not just answer your own question?

mikedreamer787
13th Aug 2013, 23:04
Yes happyfarm they'll shoehorn one in at York St.

alidad
14th Aug 2013, 01:58
It would be a bit silly putting it in Sydney. That facility is going to get bulldozed fairly soon.

maggot
14th Aug 2013, 02:46
what is the current time scale for that to happen, alidad? I've been hearing about the training facilities moving forever

happyfarm
14th Aug 2013, 13:37
Did you not just answer your own question?

Just my bad grammar. I thought the press release was deliberately vague and could have been referring to a jetstar group facility.

Ken Borough
15th Aug 2013, 01:57
I'm sure your no doubt aware that internal QF group agreements disallow the same aircraft type to operate on the same city pair


If true, wouldn't such an agreement be regarded as anti- competitive? Apart from that, how could anyone put JQ in the same League as QF? I'm still puzzled why JQ gets all the new toys while the real airline retains the old equipment. Is a ploy to minimize JQ's costs so that it appears to be such an amaaaaaaaazing biznuss?

Flowerpot Man
15th Aug 2013, 11:28
Yes happyfarm they'll shoehorn one in at York St.

Yeah they'll shoehorn it right into that empty bay..

BlackPrince77
18th Aug 2013, 22:39
So excited for the 787, QF must be slightly kicking themselves that we are just handing over our used 330's over to them! :D

neville_nobody
18th Aug 2013, 22:48
You won't be saying that when you have yet another uncontrolled battery fire somewhere in the middle of the Pacific that's for sure..................

gary gearbox
18th Aug 2013, 23:46
Black prince.

They are not your used 330s. They are our 330s that you have been borrowing.

waren9
19th Aug 2013, 00:29
word has it nev they wont be on the pacific. something about useful load. shoulda waited for the -900s maybe

edit: found some weights with google, my own rough back of the fag packet calcs, hnl to mel should be about doable with mzfw, which matches other payload range comments out there.

dunno. wait and see i guess. hopefully the battery thing gets sorted.

IsDon
19th Aug 2013, 00:51
So excited for the 787, QF must be slightly kicking themselves that we are just handing over our used 330's over to them! :D

Troll alert. :mad:

Keg
19th Aug 2013, 02:30
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. I bet QF will make more money out of the A330s than J* international has! Further, it'll mean that QF can increase the disposal rate of 767s which (despite being a champion aeroplane) cost more to operate than an A330 but carry fewer passengers with less amenity.

In that respect, QF is thrilled to be getting their A330s back into operation. CEO Domestic has been salivating at the prospect of getting them back for the last couple of years.

DirectAnywhere
20th Aug 2013, 09:38
Meanwhile a bunch of Mainline Captains and FOs on the 767 have received notice of their impending demotion.

The_Equaliser
20th Aug 2013, 09:44
And with the late Oct QF Tasman schedule changes CHC-SYD-CHC flying goes to Jetconnect.

newsensation
20th Aug 2013, 21:05
737-400 ops to go to Cobham operated 717's

hotnhigh
21st Aug 2013, 00:36
Unfortunately with the demotions on the 767, this is the next step in the complete dismantling of terms and conditions of a ratified award.
And sadly, once qantas finishes with the mainline guys, they will move onto Jetstar and whoever else is down the chain. There is no end game for these blokes.
In the end the likes of Joyce and managers beneath him are driven by one thing, their own short term bonuses, and the consultant culture that thrives when there is someone in the drivers seat who has no idea.
But credit to them, their only one long term goal is to destroy the careers of some of the longest serving employees.
Go figure.:ugh:

aeropelican
17th Sep 2013, 12:16
Old article but wow! 21J 314Y. Jetstar details Boeing 787 config: 335 seats, USB power, touchscreens - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/jetstar-details-boeing-787-config-335-seats-usb-power-touchscreens)
Sounds like a truly miserable experience.
Can anyone confirm the accuracy. I mean all other operators of the 787 are around the 210-260 mark in two class, but JQ is expecting to put 335 in an aircraft that mind you is smaller than the A330 which they put 303 into, and Australians are by no stretch petit people.

It's a good thing there are stupid people on this earth willing to endure self inflicted rigor mortis otherwise companies like JQ wouldn't be around, but anything more than an hour in those conditions... blah no thanks.

griffin one
17th Sep 2013, 13:01
Apparently the 787 with a two class 260 seat config is no more economical than those tired old 767/300 aircraft.
I'm sure the j* accountants will cook the books to make the plastic fantastic viable at any cost to mainline

waren9
17th Sep 2013, 13:17
by what measure?

FYSTI
17th Sep 2013, 21:04
Here's a starting point: PianoX B787 vs 767-300ERW & Boeing 787 update and CO2 emissions perspective. (http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/boeing787-2011.html)

For a typical mission carrying 22 metric tonnes over 5000 nm (roughly HND-FRA), the block fuel burn of the B787-8 is calculated to be 50.1 tonnes. This compares to 50.7 tonnes for the B767-300ERW based on nominal performance (no in-service deterioration) and common reserve-rule assumptions that can be accessed via the models. Plots of fuel burn as a function of distance and payload are given below at the same transparent conditions.

T-Vasis
18th Sep 2013, 11:09
Aeropelican - the B787 is kitted with new recaro slim-line seats. Allows for more seating density without compromising on pitch.

Further, there is only 21 business class, so additional economy class space, and one will assume a reduction in galley size etc?

donpizmeov
18th Sep 2013, 12:30
Vasis,

You are almost right. The LCC concept compromised the seat pitch. The slim line seats just help them do it.

The Don

B772
19th Sep 2013, 01:25
Did I see Andrew Strauss in a Jetstar TV ad for the B787 last night ?
Who is the CP for Jetstar now ?

waren9
19th Sep 2013, 16:26
yes.

still MR

Capt Kremin
23rd Sep 2013, 23:14
Any truth in the rumour that J* have crammed so many seats into the 787-8s that they cannot do OOL-NRT due to weight problems?

tempsky
23rd Sep 2013, 23:32
Come on Kremin, of course they could do OOL-NRT in those new machines, perhaps just not with a breakeven payload...

waren9
24th Sep 2013, 00:40
yes kremin, apparently. less to do with seats i'm told, more to do with the engine thrust rating they paid for. first 4? like that, others subsequent are to be chipped up. so the rumour goes anyway

Livs Hairdresser
24th Sep 2013, 01:18
Define "breakeven payload" :suspect:

IsDon
24th Sep 2013, 03:56
yes kremin, apparently. less to do with seats i'm told, more to do with the engine thrust rating they paid for. first 4 like that? others subsequent are to be chipped up. so the rumour goes anyway

I heard another case of bean counters making operational decisions based on a spreadsheet rather than sense. Just like the A330s. Utter morons that don't learn from past mistakes.

Capt Kremin
24th Sep 2013, 04:08
Interesting... this from an aircraft that was originally billed as a Trans-Pacific puddle jumper.

I am still not convinced about the 787.

waren9
24th Sep 2013, 04:10
210-250 pax from boeing website for the -800
jetstar 335 pax config apparently

anyone offering odds on how long before they are reconfigured on pax feedback?

335/250=1.34

IsDon
24th Sep 2013, 04:15
210-250 pax from boeing website for the -800
jetstar 335 pax config apparently

anyone offering odds on how long before they are reconfigured on pax feedback?

Never Warren. The masters of the universe never make mistakes.

waren9
24th Sep 2013, 04:16
true don, but reg's masterstroke of no seat recline did get reversed

Mstr Caution
24th Sep 2013, 05:00
Waren9.

I heard it was not only the engine thrust rating they paid for, but the engine pylon assembly associated with that thrust.

Supposedly, when the lower thrust engines were ordered. Boeing build the pylon specifically for that thrust output.

You can't just tweak the thrust without modifying the engine pylon.

MC

waren9
24th Sep 2013, 05:14
ah yes, mc that rings bells too.

IsDon
24th Sep 2013, 06:17
Waren9.

I heard it was not only the engine thrust rating they paid for, but the engine pylon assembly associated with that thrust.

Supposedly, when the lower thrust engines were ordered. Boeing build the pylon specifically for that thrust output.

You can't just tweak the thrust without modifying the engine pylon.

MC

Heard exactly the same thing.

Ken Borough
24th Sep 2013, 06:53
Is this a lemon for JQ in that it can't carry max pax over some of its existing sectors? I wonder how long it will take to 'return' the aircraft to Mainline?

Going Boeing
24th Sep 2013, 08:18
I wonder how long it will take to 'return' the aircraft to Mainline?

They'll be "returned" to Mainline when they are scheduled for heavy maintenance, Ken - J* have to keep their costs down somehow.

IsDon
24th Sep 2013, 09:12
I wonder how long it will take to 'return' the aircraft to Mainline?

They'll be "returned" to Mainline when they are scheduled for heavy maintenance, Ken - J* have to keep their costs down somehow.

4 years after the purchase I've been told. Apparently Boeing covers the first 4 years servicing inclusive in the purchase price. Watch them go back to mainline as soon as a bill has to be paid.

Capt Kremin
24th Sep 2013, 09:19
And there is the Jetstar paradigm writ large....

OneDotLow
24th Sep 2013, 09:25
Waren9 said :
anyone offering odds on how long before they are reconfigured on pax feedback?

We are talking about the same Jetstar here, right?

I also heard the pylon version of the above. The aircraft is sold with pylons to suit thrust rating, in order to keep the weight down on this overweight beast.

Mstr Caution
24th Sep 2013, 10:24
335 seats & lower thrust engines is plausible if the intent is to keep them on the Donestic services.

That seating density might be bearable on SYD-OOL for someone only looking to spend $30 bucks on a airfare.

waren9
24th Sep 2013, 10:39
We are talking about the same Jetstar here, right?

why not? reclining seats were reinstalled after pax feedback. no?

OneDotLow
24th Sep 2013, 11:15
Maybe at Ansett, but this is Jetstar we are talking about. Im not including the crew when I say this, but they (management) couldn't give two hoots about the customer's needs/wants/desires/feedback. So long as they lure customers in with a 'cheap' airfare, who cares what happens next. For now there are enough first timers out there to keep them going. I'm sure they even have a few regulars.

whatever6719
24th Sep 2013, 13:10
That's not the first time I've heard about the thing being used for domestic flights. A friend of mine told me the other day that a JQ colleague mentioned that these are primarily domestic configured aircraft.
I know they intend on doing some proving flights within Australia before they supposedly go international but that config is diabolical!
The interesting thing is, if they are going to be domestic aircraft, then that means they will have a "business class" product - domestically!!!!

waren9
24th Sep 2013, 13:45
The interesting thing is, if they are going to be domestic aircraft, then that means they will have a "business class" product - domestically!!!!

interesting indeed.

Capt Kremin
25th Sep 2013, 04:28
The domestic flights are only to gain experience. They won't last long.

1a sound asleep
25th Sep 2013, 05:28
I would be more worried about whos jobs the 110 A320s (that are on order) are going to take

Normasars
25th Sep 2013, 08:46
I will wager that Network end up with at least a couple of handfuls of them.

RPT AOC well on track and significant 'Bus and heavy metal time guys working behind the scenes getting this show on the road.

Watch this space as I have repeated now for quite a while.

waren9
25th Sep 2013, 08:54
I would be more worried about whos jobs the 110 A320s (that are on order) are going to take

replacements. unless you find a delivery schedule that points otherwise

Wedcue
27th Sep 2013, 07:21
Normasars: same as me mate. It's so obvious.

TBM-Legend
30th Sep 2013, 12:00
Quote from Flightglobal today:

Low-cost carrier Norwegian is wet-leasing an Airbus A340 after deciding to take its second Boeing 787 out of service to settle recent operational difficulties.

Norwegian took delivery of its first 787 in June to operate on its new long-haul services, later adding a second of the type. But it has since faced several instances of disruption to the carrier's long-haul services which, at times, have taken both of its 787s out of service, forcing it to lease capacity from other operators.

Wonder what this means to other operators present and immediate future?

wild goose
3rd Oct 2013, 12:58
It would appear that VH-VKA has been delivered and is on its way.

KZ Kiwi
3rd Oct 2013, 17:59
What a witty, articulate and intelligent post regitaekilthgiwt. Well done indeed.

T-Vasis
4th Oct 2013, 03:15
ABT reports the aircraft lands in Melbourne on Wednesday at 1305, with a media event following shortly after.

CEO's and media on-board from Seattle.

Oxidant
4th Oct 2013, 05:04
ABT reports the aircraft lands in Melbourne on Wednesday at 1305, with a media event following shortly after.

CEO's and media on-board from Seattle

Wonder what they will think of the new "sardine" class seating?

T-Vasis
4th Oct 2013, 06:07
It is the same recaro seat being used on the newer QF330's, so it would be the same. Unless pitch is less? Does it have the sliding seat-pan?

spotfx
4th Oct 2013, 15:34
Apparently the 787 with a two class 260 seat config is no more economical
than those tired old 767/300 aircraft.
I'm sure the j* accountants will cook
the books to make the plastic fantastic viable at any cost to mainline


Do you have a source for this? The internal figures I've seen for another major airline operating the 787 show (when they aren't grounded:)) the aircraft to be incredibly economical. Assuming no major teething problems, the aircraft should be a great addition to the Qantas Group - whichever subsidiary they end up in.

stainedpantystealer
5th Oct 2013, 00:47
B787 VH-VKA, operated as flight JQ7878, is scheduled to arrive MEL after an overnight in HNL on October 9 at 1305L.

Snakecharma
5th Oct 2013, 01:54
Don't know how many journo's and hangerons there are onboard, but you think the new plastic fantastic would be able to make Everett to Melbourne direct, or at very least brissie.

But I suppose Hono is a better overnight port...

T-Vasis
5th Oct 2013, 02:44
Maybe there is an overnight in Honolulu for a reason...

moa999
5th Oct 2013, 02:50
T-Vasis,
I suspect the free publicity of the first 787 to HNL wouldn't hurt.
Maybe might also expect a route announcement or something.

Roller Merlin
5th Oct 2013, 03:13
No crew rest facility fitted...hence HNL o'night.

Will make lots of money if the pax can stand the squash. Apparently will burn 5 tons less on HNL-OZ and go faster saving around 20 mins over A330

Buttscratcher
5th Oct 2013, 03:17
Maybe might also expect a route announcement or something.

Or that it's rooted in HNL

hotnhigh
8th Oct 2013, 03:40
I'm sure jetstar have adequate engineering support all over the place for the introduction of a new type.
After all its just like picking up a new set of wheels from holden and driving off isn't it?
http://www.aspectfinancial.com.au/docserver/01450912.pdf?fileid=01450912&datedir=20131007&edt=MjAxMy0xMC0wOCsxNDozMzoxMSs0ODArNDA2NzYrYW5kcmV3d2VzdCty ZWRpcmVjdCtodHRwOi8vd3d3LmFzcGVjdGZpbmFuY2lhbC5jb20uYXUvaW1h Z2VzaWduYWwvZXJyb3JwYWdlcy9wZGZ0aW1lb3V0Lmh0bWwraHR0cDovL3d3 dy5hc3BlY3RmaW5hbmNpYWwuY29tLmF1L2ltYWdlc2lnbmFsL2Vycm9ycGFn ZXMvcGRmZGVsYXllZC5qc3A=

• Younger fleet requires less maintenance spend per ASK:
— Improved technology results in reduced maintenance requirements (maintenance on demand)
— New aircraft require less frequent heavy maintenance checks than older aircraft
• Engineering cost savings
— Lower inventory levels per aircraft
— Less spare engines per aircraft
— Less total support staff per aircraft

And no mention anywhere about the actual profit numbers.
An amazing business.

Angle of Attack
8th Oct 2013, 06:36
Diverging slightly off Jetstars 787, I am starting to hear that the fuel burn figures are pretty damn impressive..... Around 18% less than a 330 Ive heard from a mate flying them...(who flew 330's before transfering)

lc_461
8th Oct 2013, 06:39
I still struggle with the fact that QF provides absolutely no profit/loss figures for JQ long haul... We are continually told of the amaaaaaazing business.. But it is bundled into JQDomestic.
Seems odd that a part of the group with questionable load factors according to anecdotal evidence would get all the new toys when the parent won't even contemplate a purchase for at least 3 years!

The The
8th Oct 2013, 08:11
Joyce has admitted Jetstar Longhaul Asia loses money. Jetstar Australia Longhaul? Who knows?

Qantas chief Alan Joyce sets Asian expansion hopes on Jetstar HK joint venture
BY: MICHAEL SAINSBURY AND STEVE CREEDY From: The Australian June 12, 2012 12:00AM
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print
PPRuNe this
QANTAS chief Alan Joyce says the China market is a huge opportunity for the company as it builds up its Jetstar Hong Kong joint venture with China Eastern as part of a plan to become the dominant low-cost carrier in Asia.

Mr Joyce said Jetstar had more planes after seven years than European low-cost pioneer Ryanair did at the same stage in its development, and aimed to be as big as his old employer in coming years.

He admitted the Singapore-based Jetstar Asia venture would lose money this year on long-haul routes but said revenue was coming more quickly than expected into its low-cost Japanese start-up.

Jetstar has committed $64 million to the Japanese operation it owns with Oneworld partner Japan Airlines and Mitsubishi.

"We have a smaller shareholding (33 per cent) because of the law," Mr Joyce said. "Revenue is coming in sooner than expected."

But the huge opportunities in Asia lay in China, already the world's second-biggest airline market and set to rival the US in the next decade.


"We believe there are three big markets in China: premium, low-cost, cargo," Mr Joyce said. "For premium we need to turn around Qantas International before we can grow it again. We made a commitment to shareholders we won't put more capital or aircraft into it until it gets to break even and is returning costs over the next three years."

Meanwhile, Qantas's operations to mainland China are limited to just one flight daily from Sydney to Shanghai and the more profitable three cargo flights from Australia to China and then the US and back to Australia.

"We're looking at enhancing (code-sharing) further and working a lot closer with China Eastern," Mr Joyce said.

In the interim, Jetstar is committing $99m in capital to its 50-50 Jetstar Hong Kong venture with China Eastern.

Qantas is optimistic that a new Hong Kong government, a reconfiguration of government departments and review of aviation regulation will work in its favour.

It hopes that will clear the way for approvals for the airline to progress more quickly and says it has been getting strong local support.

Mr Joyce said the biggest resistance was coming from the pilot union, which was paying a consultant to lobby against the move. He said the airline had gone through regulatory approval processes several times and had a team that was dedicated to the process.

It had teamed up with local partners because they knew the local market and Jetstar had taken a comprehensive view of getting as many stakeholders behind it as it could.

"We're optimistic, so we're still on plan for the middle of next year," he said.

Both China Eastern and Jetstar have started allocating people to the project and the airline is already looking at issues such as aircraft allocation, AOC requirements and recruitment.

There was also a commercial team looking at routes and Mr Joyce said the airline could also allocate its Jetstar Japan start-up team to the project after the airline launched next month.

Rotor Work
8th Oct 2013, 09:40
Watching the news tonight, it was a pleasant surprise to see Jeremy (aka Stretch) as part of the flight crew departing the Boeing factory in Jetstars 787.
I often wonder where all the guys from the Ron Robertson CPL course of 1984 ended up.
Regards R W (aka Blades)

blow.n.gasket
8th Oct 2013, 09:56
These guys running Qantas aren't even original!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

From an article back in the late '90's in Business World by Teddy Casino.

"Is it possible to lose money and yet make a profit, lots of it?
Yes especially if you're Lucio Tan.

Not only that, you can even run your company into the ground, make millions and then position yourself for more.
The scheme is very simple.
First ,buy an ailing Government asset like Phillipine Airlines for a song.
Then embark on a US$4 billion refleeting program involving the purchase of 36 new jets.
But don't use your own money.
Or if you do, just put in enough to make people think you've put out a lot.
The trick is to borrow US$850 million from European creditors,
US$230 million from local banks including one you own, and billions more from other local and international sources.

After pocketing the commissions from the planes, you can even form some dummy corporations to lease the planes to your newly acquired airline at 40% more than normal rates"


Next spin off the company’s money-making operations like training and in-flight catering, to your other companies.

Buy spare parts and equipment ,not from the manufacturers themselves which sell them cheap, but through your own distributorship which allows bigger commissions.

In other words, milk all you can from the company. That’s right, suck it to the marrow.

If you do everthing correctly, your company will have lost P451 million in the first year and P8.08 billion in the fifth, the biggest loss in the airline’s 57 year history.



With your company now severly in the red, you will have a convenient excuse to lay off thousands and, in the process, bust the unions.Tell your workers you have no choice. Blame the Asian currency crisis, the liberalisation of the Aviation industry, the down-grading of the Phillipines to a category 2 destination by the US Federal Aviation Administration, the high cost of plane maintenance and the grossly unprofitable missionary domestic routes.

But never, never blame yourself or your mismanagement of the company.

When your airline finally crashes, file for insolvency at the Securities and Exchange Commission and save your-self the trouble of paying P85 billion worth of debts, including billions worth of separation pay and retirement benefits due thousands of workers you have laid off with impunity.

In the end you will be left with a bankrupt company but with millions more in your pocket.

By this time you will have succeeded in turning your workforce into a horde of servile commercial labourers without a union to protect them.

Now you can reorganise the company the way you want it with the minimum of opposition. Now you can really make money.

That is how the picture looks to the workers of PAL, many of whom are still smarting from their recent standoff with the management of Lucio Tan.

For clearly their woes are far from over.

Things are worse for the pilots, the original strikers whose 550 or so members remain jobless.

Ironically , the PAL management refuses to give them their termination papers, proof that the company still needs them and in fact, wants them to re-apply, of course as second-class probationary or contractual workers. As far as ALPA is concerned, Mr Tan’s plans are to break the union, prevent the pilots from getting in other airlines and starve them into submission.

It should be made clear that the issue here is not merely job security.

Even the unions admit that these lay-offs are actually part of managements plan to restructure the corporation and were here long before the strike and long before the massive losses.

In fact it seems that the severe losses were actually stage-managed to justify lay-offs and will be further used to justify whatever sweeping changes may be made at PAL.

What we see here is a kind of corporation restructure that preys on its own workers. What we see here is plain simple greed taking precedence over the livelihoods and rights of thousands of workers. And what we see here is Government that condones such actions.

In the meantime ,Mr Tan gets away scot-free. Capitalism does work doesn’t it?´´

Ichiban
9th Oct 2013, 02:54
It has arrived, on a blustery Melbourne day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0hTNKvLLos

h.o.t.a.s.
9th Oct 2013, 03:31
Mr Joyce said the biggest resistance was coming from the pilot union, which was paying a consultant to lobby against the move.

What The :mad:!!!!??? The Pilot Union runs Cathay Pacific now?

Capt Fathom
9th Oct 2013, 04:46
No crew rest facility fitted

Should make an excellent long haul aircraft then! :D

gary gearbox
9th Oct 2013, 06:00
Crew rest not required on JQ long haul. Plenty of room on the cockpit floor for one of the guys to stretch out and have a kip.

Stalins ugly Brother
9th Oct 2013, 06:28
Crew rest not required on JQ long haul. Plenty of room on the cockpit floor for one of the guys to stretch out and have a kip.

Ahhh, the glamourous life for the next gen longhaul pilot! :rolleyes:

Next step, make sure your pilot reps get you into the best YMCA's on the network. Good luck! :E

gary gearbox
9th Oct 2013, 06:30
YMCAs are definitely on the upper end of the backpacker scale though.:D

SOPS
9th Oct 2013, 07:32
In the West Australian the Jetstar 787 chief pilot was quoted as saying, the engines are so quiet they will reduce pilot fatigue. That's probably why there is no crew rest installed.

Also wonder boy GT said that it was a very smooth ride through clouds because 'wing flaps' are deployed to suppress gusts. What is all that about?

Capn Bloggs
9th Oct 2013, 08:02
That video won't play. Says "an error occurred". Probably an electrical glitch...

4dogs
9th Oct 2013, 08:27
Bloggs,

I thought it didn't recognise electrical glitches, since they are Ops Normal...:E

busdriver007
9th Oct 2013, 08:43
They will need crew rest beyond 2015...everyone will. That's the law. What are they thinking...Besides full load 5 hours endurance...that will work. I guess Ansett wasn't a fluke after all!

Mstr Caution
9th Oct 2013, 09:00
SOPS

Load Alleviation Function

FYSTI
9th Oct 2013, 09:39
They will need crew rest beyond 2015...everyone will
Can you elaborate on this?

Ichiban
9th Oct 2013, 11:28
SOPS.

From the 787 FCOM, Flight Controls:

Gust Suppression.
Vertical gust suppression enhances ride quality in the presence of vertical gusts and turbulence. It utilizes symmetric deflection of the flaperons and elevators to alleviate gust acceleration. This function is active only with the autopilot engaged in Altitude Hold or VNAV level flight modes.
Lateral gust suppression improves ride quality and can reduce pilot work load on approach by automatic application of discrete yaw commands in response to lateral gusts and turbulence.
Operation of vertical and lateral gust suppression does not result in control wheel, control column, or rudder pedal movement.

SOPS
9th Oct 2013, 12:32
Roger that, thanks.

Capn Rex Havoc
9th Oct 2013, 13:10
Airbus has had load alleviation for donkeys years. Boeing finally catching up.:E

SRM
9th Oct 2013, 16:37
Boeing had GUST RESPONSE SUPPRESSION systems fitted to 747-200 aircraft I flew in Kuwait.

The system was fitted to aircraft around 1975.

Do not remember any Airbus aircraft around then.

Ngineer
9th Oct 2013, 20:38
Boeing had GUST RESPONSE SUPPRESSION systems fitted to 747-200 aircraft I flew in Kuwait.

And gust suppresion was fitted to clunkers in the QF fleet.

PammyAnderson
9th Oct 2013, 21:55
So as the jetstar 330s go to qantas and the 767s retired, are the 767 pilots doing a straight swap over to the 330s? (Apologies if this has been covered previously)

IsDon
9th Oct 2013, 22:55
So as the jetstar 330s go to qantas and the 767s retired, are the 767 pilots doing a straight swap over to the 330s? (Apologies if this has been covered previously)

Ah, no. Some captains managed to get across to the 330 and some ended up demoted to the 737. 1 F/O out of 20 got an A330 F/O position while the other F/Os are being demoted to A380 S/O.

Problem being the 747 F/Os will run out of leave to assign in twelve months and the company plans to reduce them to the A330 as F/Os then. If they trained the 767 F/Os onto the 330 then they would only be displaced by the 747 F/Os in twelve months.

So while QF mainline shrinks due to abject neglect from management, and all resources are pumped into the amaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazing orange cancer, the demotions will continue. Just a matter of time until the junior A380/330 S/Os start being made redundant and find themselves on the dole queue.

Tankengine
9th Oct 2013, 22:56
Short answer - no.

Mstr Caution
9th Oct 2013, 23:03
Pammy.

Its actually the Qantas A330's on loan to JQ that are returning to Qantas.

Due to the Qantas purchased B787's being deployed at Jetstar replacing the loaned Qantas A330's.

As the Qantas A330's return to Qantas, it allows the retirement of the Qantas 767.

This enables the Qantas guys and girls with 20 plus years widebody Boeing time to be redeployed & retrained to Airbus some electing to so voluntarily some forced.

Meanwhile the Airbus experienced guys and girls at Jetstar will be retrained to fly the Boeing 787.

But all will work out ok. Cause if Qantas order the B787 to be delivered to mainline in 2016. The guys redeployed to the Airbus A380 as Second Officers will be able to return to the B787 as FO's.

Going Nowhere
9th Oct 2013, 23:15
That's assuming that QF crew operate the B787's for QF.

Lots can change in 3 years... :E:hmm:

spelling_nazi
9th Oct 2013, 23:48
Amaaaaaaaazing

training wheels
10th Oct 2013, 00:32
Watching the news tonight, it was a pleasant surprise to see Jeremy (aka Stretch) as part of the flight crew departing the Boeing factory in Jetstars 787.

Yes, nice to see Jeremy in the news .. was my instructor at YMMB back in the late 80's.

angryrat
10th Oct 2013, 01:47
Gee, they tucked that 787 into the hanger quickly, must have needed the x-ray machine for some heavy landing checks :E

Derfred
10th Oct 2013, 03:16
Why is the 787 painted a different colour silver?

SOPS
10th Oct 2013, 08:52
The way mainline is going they will announce they are closing the doors any day soon, and that ammmmmmaaaaazing business is taking over all the flying. It's really very very sad, and I sit and wonder every day, how it's been allowed to happen and why no one is asking any questions.

OneDotLow
10th Oct 2013, 09:02
Derfield said :
Why is the 787 painted a different colour silver?

This is a special JQ low cost paint shop feature. You'll notice that each and every A330 and A320 comes painted in a new and unique shade of silver. I imagine it will cost a lot to get Boeing to come up with a different silver each time one of these pops off the end of the construction line. :E

dizzylizzy
10th Oct 2013, 09:23
So if tech crew rest isn't fitted then european flights can be ruled out? Surely you wouldn't allow a curtained off premium economy seat for 'rest' on a 10+hr sector?

waren9
10th Oct 2013, 09:50
the 330s have a curtained off business seat.

whether thats sufficient for wsss to europe i dont know

Keg
10th Oct 2013, 09:52
A bunch of years back I remember one of our crew (and a top bloke as well) summed it up thus:

All silver colours are metalics,ie they are not a solid colour such as white red blue etc.They have small particles of metal that give it that irridesance appearance.Bit like buying a family car in a 'metalic' colour.And as such they all need a coat of clear to prevent oxidation.Clear coats are affected primarily by UV sunlight which tend to break them down and hence tend to dull,craze and discolour.

So at the end of the day anyone who paints a jet silver is a moron.

:E :ok:

Mstr Caution
10th Oct 2013, 12:02
In a normal config, I believe max payload range is 5500nm.

Wouldn't the Jetstar config of 335 be payload restricted to Europe?

I wouldn't be surprised if history repeats itself (like the A330) & JQ redeploy the 787 to fly out of Asia.

A config of 335 and shorter hops around Asia might be the grand plan.

waren9
10th Oct 2013, 12:22
well keg, of all the cars i've ever owned, its the metallic jobbies that've held their lustre better. its the solid colours that need a cut from time to time.

cant speak for airplane paint tho

pull-up-terrain
10th Oct 2013, 23:27
. So if tech crew rest isn't fitted then european flights can be ruled out? Surely you wouldn't allow a curtained off premium economy seat for 'rest' on a 10+hr sector?


I can't really see jetstar ever being a long haul low cost airline with 10+hr sectors. I don't think I have even heard of a low cost carrier making a profit on long haul.

OneDotLow
10th Oct 2013, 23:58
Then again, we'd never heard of a legacy carrier successfully launching a profitable low cost carrier of their own, without caniballising the carrier's business, had we?!

If you've got a seemingly impossible/improbable problem, come and ask the QF B team... They'll 'leverage their experience' for you :ok:

Capt Kremin
11th Oct 2013, 04:29
From Australian Business Traveller a couple of days ago.... .???

Qantas sets its sights on Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller (http://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-sets-its-sights-on-boeing-787-9-dreamliner)

Keg
11th Oct 2013, 04:33
All part of the narrative. I reckon they'll announce the 787 for mainline about mid next year..... when they announce that their magical transformation is on track to break even and return to profit and the 787 is the vehicle which will bring about that improved profitability.

Normasars
11th Oct 2013, 06:09
Mainline crew might crew the B787, but you will have no choice but to do it on Jetstar T&Cs.

Ask yourself the all important question!

Q. If you were running the business(ie if it was YOUR business), why would you pay one lot of employees more than the other to do exactly the same job?
A. You wouldn't!


You blokes are dreaming if you think you will crew it under your present conditions.

It aint eva going to happen!

Mstr Caution
11th Oct 2013, 06:48
All part of the narrative. I reckon they'll announce the 787 for mainline about mid next year..... when they announce that their magical transformation is on track to break even and return to profit and the 787 is the vehicle which will bring about that improved profitability.

A senior manager recently said. The mainline fleet age is commercial in confidence. Hence they report the "groups" fleet age.

Whilst one part of the group has a relatively young average fleet age, another part of the group has a distinctly older fleet age.

What the investment community has failed to realise due reporting a "group" fleet age is over investment in one part of the business & under investment in another.

MC.

Keg
11th Oct 2013, 06:48
Q. If you were running the business(ie if it was YOUR business), why would you pay one lot of employees more than the other to do exactly the same job?
A. You wouldn't!

They are now so why wouldn't they in the future? Further, there are transmission of business issues to cross here as well.

You blokes are dreaming if you think you will crew it under your present conditions.


QF are after efficiencies when it comes to the 787. Despite the general belief to the contrary, we've been prepared to look at efficiencies for quite some time now. EG: currently 767 crew are cheaper per ASK than mainline 737 crew. I reckon that would put us very, very close to the cost per ASK for a J* A320 or J* A330. We don't need to be too much more efficient to be 'on the mark' to get to fly the 787. It may be a set of conditions slightly different to the current ones but will certainly be acceptable.

Further, many crew look at the current conditions- designed for 707s and extrapolated to the 744 when aeroplanes flew for max 14 hours- and realise that it's not a situation that can continue into perpetuity. Again, it's an issue that crew have been open to for some time.

I think part of the issue with many people on PPRUNE is that they see what AJ tells the media about pilots (normally the max earners on the A380) and then project that across all fleets. Many PPRUNE contributors don't actually realise the reality. That doesn't bother me overly much but it does amuse me when I read comments that talk about how over priced I am despite the fact that I'm in part of the group that has contributed to massive profits over the past bunch of years- more than J* anyway! :ok: It also amuses me when people tell me I'm dreaming if I think I'll get the 787 on current terms and conditions when they're not entirely authorities on current terms and conditions as it is let alone the negotiations that have taken place to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. At the end of the day, agreeing to a deal for the 787 is a shite load cheaper than 400+ redundancies. :ugh: :rolleyes:

Mstr Caution
11th Oct 2013, 06:57
Keg,

The big efficiencies are achieved in the aircraft that Mainline operate.

It was reported last week that as the 767 retires & are replaced by A330's domestically.

Rationalising the domestic operation to two fleets types, the operating cost would reduce by around 10% and would be within (If my memory serves me correctly) about 5% of Virgins.

These efficiency gains were achieved without ANY changes to the Long or Short Haul EBA.

Considering crew costs are only about 3% of the airlines operating costs, it pales into insignificance compared to operating fuel efficient jets.

Keg
11th Oct 2013, 08:08
Mstr Caution, I'm not going to go into detail here but until we actually DO sort our some of the inefficiencies that actually do exist in our award then we continue to give the company the opportunity to go to other entities.

h.o.t.a.s.
11th Oct 2013, 08:38
At the end of the day, agreeing to a deal for the 787 is a shite load cheaper than 400+ redundancies.

Considering crew costs are only about 3% of the airlines operating costs, it pales into insignificance compared to operating fuel efficient jets.

Amen.:D:D:D

waren9
11th Oct 2013, 09:02
i think we'd have to play the game smarter if we want to argue the transfer of business issue. jetstar has been around a while now. precedent set. and aipa got spanked in the jetconnect court case for equivalent terms

i doubt mgmnt will have any trouble at all putting those 787s on any au aoc they want

Mstr Caution
11th Oct 2013, 12:49
I'm not going to go into detail here but until we actually DO sort our some of the inefficiencies that actually do exist in our award then we continue to give the company the opportunity to go to other entities.

I agree with you Keg, but you also have to recall the previous form of the organisation your dealing with.

I recall LH pilots accepting a pay freeze with the promise they would be looked after later.

The company still went elsewhere to crew aircraft.

The problem the company has is they have played the industrial hard ball for too long & the pilots no longer trust anything they are told by management.

So management have responded with group love in's in an attempt to engage the pilots that they actually disengaged.

Dont forget, not only the massive cost of making long haul pilots redundant but also the down training costs in reverse seniority.

waren9
11th Oct 2013, 12:57
down training costs in reverse seniority.

afaik thats yet to be tested/enforced.

regardless of any agreement, if the company pleads hardship in court, it'll be a battle to get

theheadmaster
11th Oct 2013, 13:00
regardless of any agreement, if the company pleads hardship in court, it'll be a battle to get

What do you base this on specifically?

spelling_nazi
11th Oct 2013, 20:36
And if you blokes hadn't signed up for such crap conditions none of us would have to be on these conditions .

Buckshot
11th Oct 2013, 20:37
A senior manager recently said. The mainline fleet age is commercial in confidence. Hence they report the "groups" fleet age.

The senior manager should check out the interweb where fleet ages of any fleet are readily available.

This examples puts the QF mainline fleet at 10.3 years.

Fleet age Qantas | Airfleets aviation (http://www.airfleets.net/ageflotte/Qantas.htm)

Funnily enough, Alan's recent claims about the group fleet age and the fleet age graph published on p4 of the ASX statement (http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20131007/pdf/42jvtkhv0xc7vm.pdf) don't quite stack up unless you take out the 'amaaazing' business.

Mstr Caution
12th Oct 2013, 00:45
The 10.3 years mainline fleet age was achieved a while ago even with the retirement of older aircraft.

Normasars
12th Oct 2013, 05:07
KEG,

I understand that the "group" currently does operate the same type on different awards ala 330. That is an entirely different scenario.

That was to launch JQ wide body long haul ops, and they were offered the work on those conditions or told there would be a Greenfields operation set up to crew the 330 if they didn't accept it. And the rest is as they say, history.

This is a totally different case. The aircraft will be established and in service in the group and under the JQ LH award. Mainline LH is already established, there is no bargaining tool. I think history can attest to QF mantra "If you don't accept what is offered, they will all go to JQ!" So all things being equal, QF mainline may be offered the a/c under a similar pay scale(or preferably less), or miss out!

I'm glad you find it amusing Keg, but that wasn't the context in which I made the statement. Nowhere in my previous did i say "you were over priced". Don't try and put words in my mouth. I do agree with you that agreeing to a deal is a better outcome than redundancies. However, I and no doubt many others here will find it quite ironic if that "deal" corresponds to what is essentially the JQ package that so many here have been criticised for by so many others for accepting, in order to put food on the table.
I will stand on my statement that you may get to fly the 787, but it will not be on the conditions that you are currently enjoying.

In the end, history may prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

Derfred
12th Oct 2013, 18:52
yet to be tested? they've just demoted a bunch of F/O's to S/O.

KRUSTY 34
12th Oct 2013, 20:42
Wasn't the seniority scope clause "weakened" back in the 90's?

Ken Borough
13th Oct 2013, 05:27
From a JQ 'presser'

" I can say from experience that flying on the 787 is a destination in itself.”



Do the bogans of the world really have such low expectations?

Angle of Attack
14th Oct 2013, 07:23
I agree it will not be on the Longhaul Contract, no other airline in the world has a contract like it. It will be a Stick hours contract and you will be actually required to Stick 700-1000 hours a year like almost every other airline in the world. You cant stick 300-500 hours a year and say its an efficient award in anyones language. Having said that it doesnt mean you will be worse off, probably youll get paid more because of the higher stick hours, ala QF 767 vs 737 where the majority of 737 crew actually get paid more than the 767 crew, but they fly more hours for it.

Capt Kremin
14th Oct 2013, 08:30
I am currently bouncing off 780 hours for the last 12 months. The only times I have done less are when the company gave away 25% of the fleet to Jetstar.

Maybe you should re-examine your prejudices?

Capt Kremin
14th Oct 2013, 08:54
What may have escaped people's notice here is that the first 787 is actually a Qantas aircraft, leased to Jetstar.



VH VKA
Power Driven Aeroplane with Tricycle - Retractable landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: THE BOEING COMPANY
Model: 787-8
Serial number: 36227
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 30 August 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 30 August 2013
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Building QCA/3 10 Bourke Road
MASCOT NSW 2020
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 30 August 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA

This is true of 17 other aircraft flown by Jetstar. A few questions are begged here.

1. Where did the money come from to pay for this aircraft and the others?

2. What are the terms of the leases and why, when there are many leasing companies, does QF feel it necessary to get involved in leasing aircraft to Jetstar?

3. Does the end of the delivery schedule of the remaining 13 787-8 aircraft correspond to the projected time period where International will, after years of neglect, magically become profitable again?

Or am I just cynical?

Jetsbest
14th Oct 2013, 09:15
I'm with Kremin on this one. My ongoing A330 'rolling average' for the last 365 days tends to the high side of 750 stick hours, including two blocks of 4 weeks of leave. And I've twice been up against 100hrs-in-28days issues too. Where did you get 300-500 from? :rolleyes:

What The
14th Oct 2013, 09:40
Has anyone got information on who leases aircraft to the Qantas Group and whether any current or past Board members or Executives are involved in these companies?

Keg
14th Oct 2013, 10:12
ala QF 767 vs 737 where the majority of 737 crew actually get paid more than the 767 crew, but they fly more hours for it.

The 737 get paid the equivalent to a 767 crew (on min guarantee of 80 credit hous pay) when the 737 crew fly about 70 hours/ 28 days. Next roster I fly 71.7 for my 80 credit hours*. Times that by 12 x 28 day BPs and I'm at 860 stick for the year0. I've had two sub 500 hour years over the last few years. I was also assigned 3 months leave on top of my normal leave

So you're wrong on two counts. The first is about how many hours we fly when not being assigned all our leave. The second is on how much long haul crew cost when compared to short haul. Wanna try again?

(* My credit hour rate is less than the 737 stick hour rate).

Keg
14th Oct 2013, 10:27
The other point worth making is this. Once again we have someone speaking with an air of authority about something of which they have no idea. I'm not personally attacking you AoA, just stating that you are demonstrably so completely and utterly ignorant as to the reality of our respective awards that it calls into question anything you have to say about what Qantas may or may not do when it comes to negotiating a deal for the 787.

I guess the final point worth making is that you also obviously know nothing of the discussions going on at the moment between AIPA and QF re 787 conditions.

waren9
14th Oct 2013, 10:43
how many stick hours are qf pilots doing when only only flying lh?

Keg
14th Oct 2013, 11:30
When I was flying long haul I used to do average 800-850. It wasn't unheard of for crew to be bumping 900. Blank line holders did less though- maybe 600 stick but they were doing LOTS of reserve. Those flying 850 were doing zero reserve.

I'm not sure where this notion came that we're only flying 500 as a matter of course. The only times anyone has flown 500 hours is if they've been assigned copious amounts of long service leave or excess annual leave.

waren9
14th Oct 2013, 12:01
kremin

i think who owns the aircraft is moot. real question is if jq are paying the true cost of operating it. been raised before

Capt Kremin
14th Oct 2013, 20:08
Waren, if QF paid for that and other aircraft, the money came from somewhere. It affected the bottom line of one its entities. The losses of International, particularly the declining profit after the bumper year of 2008, have never been fully explained.

I have seen the terms at which Qantas supplies A330 simulator services to Jetstar and they are NOT on commercial terms. The opaqueness of these leasing arrangements and the cost of aircraft acquisition needs to be addressed.

blow.n.gasket
14th Oct 2013, 21:33
Makes you wonder what, if any reason has been driving the segmentationalisation of the business entities ??
Would the AASB's alignment of accounting standards with internationally agreed standards as driven by the IFRS ,have anything to do with this apparent waste of resources?

FYSTI
14th Oct 2013, 22:50
This is the standard: Compiled AASB Standard AASB 8 Operating Segment. (http://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content105/c9/AASB8_02-07_COMPdec09_01-11.pdf)
Have a read and a close look at what the can be done, there is an enormous scope for generating opacity by the "Chief Operating Decision Maker".
The term ‘chief operating decision maker’ identifies a function, not necessarily a manager with a specific title. That function is to allocate resources to and assess the performance of the operating segments of an entity. Often the chief operating decision maker of an entity is its chief executive officer or chief operating officer but, for example, it may be a group of executive directors or others.

The method here has been to generate a series of "plausible narratives" ie international is loss making, but yet hide behind opaque accounts which have not been revealed on the basis of commercial in confidence. In otherwords, it is impossible to follow the money without having access to the internal accounts. Public statements about any segment without revealing the corresponding accounts are simply disinformation 101.

spotfx
14th Oct 2013, 22:57
1. Where did the money come from to pay for this aircraft and the others?
2. What are the terms of the leases and why, when there are many leasing companies, does QF feel it necessary to get involved in leasing aircraft to Jetstar?




Has anyone got information on who leases aircraft to the Qantas Group and whether any current or past Board members or Executives are involved in these companies?


Qantas isn't funding these aircraft through its own cash flows.

The aircraft are financed predominantly through the capital markets and the syndicated bank debt market - it's the usual suspects like the major international and domestic banks, plus pension & mutual funds buying asset-backed securities. QAL don't normally bother with local leasing companies as they can finance the aircraft far cheaper themselves.

QAL remain the legal owner of the aircraft but enter into a lease with JetStar on commercial terms that largely match the costs on the financing. The lenders require these sub-leases to be on commercial terms as protection against a QAL default (the lenders can step in and receive the lease payments themselves on a default). There's no real subsidization in the lease agreements with JetStar - the banks and other lenders won't let them.

Capt Kremin
14th Oct 2013, 23:06
Qantas isn't funding these aircraft through its own cash flows.

Oh really?

Qantas plumps for Boeing - Business - Business - theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/qantas-plumps-for-boeing/2005/12/14/1134500912379.html)

Qantas will fund the new planes from cash flows.

The question is whose? I am damn sure Jetstar isn't paying for the aircraft through its own cash flows and then paying lease payments to Qantas.

Capt Kremin
14th Oct 2013, 23:14
QAL don't normally bother with local leasing companies as they can finance the aircraft far cheaper themselves.

Oh really?

Here are the last few A320's received by Jetstar. Some are owned by Qantas, some are owned by leasing companies. Why doesn't Qantas use leasing companies for all of them?


VH VFQ
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5780
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 19 August 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 19 August 2013
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Building QCA/3 10 Bourke Road
MASCOT NSW 2020
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 19 August 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFP
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5775
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 19 August 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 19 August 2013
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Building QCA/3 10 Bourke Road
MASCOT NSW 2020
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 19 August 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFU
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5814
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 01 October 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 01 October 2013
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Building QCA/3 10 Bourke Road
MASCOT NSW 2020
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 01 October 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFL
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5489
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 25 January 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 25 January 2013
WINTER MSN 5489 LIMITED
Block B, Riverside IV Sir John Rogersons Quay
DUBLIN 2
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
Registered operator as of 25 January 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFO
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5631
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 21 May 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 21 May 2013
BOC AVIATION (USA) CORPORATION
C/O BOC Aviation Pte. Ltd., 8, Shenton Way, #18-01
SINGAPORE . 068811
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Registered operator as of 21 May 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFN
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5566
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 12 March 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 12 March 2013
BOC AVIATION (USA) CORPORATION
C/O BOC Aviation Pte. Ltd., 8, Shenton Way, #18-01
SINGAPORE . 068811
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Registered operator as of 12 March 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFT
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5532
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 20 September 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 20 September 2013
BOC AVIATION (USA) CORPORATION
C/O BOC Aviation Pte. Ltd., 8, Shenton Way, #18-01
SINGAPORE . 068811
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Registered operator as of 20 September 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA

CaptCloudbuster
15th Oct 2013, 00:11
The opaqueness of these leasing arrangements and the cost of aircraft acquisition needs to be addressed.

Capt Kremin,

Why don't you dial in at the next "Connections" and ask the question?:rolleyes:

Surely our Dear leader was genuine when signing the sacred parchment with its commitment to
communicate and consult with openness and transparency

Capt Kremin
15th Oct 2013, 03:19
My theory..?

International was doing just fine in 2008. It was the major contributor to the record profit attained that year. Enter Joyce and the "Promote Jetstar at all costs," mantra.

So what has happened since then?

* In 2009 Qantas NZ becomes part of Jetstar International, a company that does not actually exists. Pax numbers reports of Jetstar International leap 100% as NZ domestic passengers are counted as Jetstar International passengers. Nowhere is this acknowledged.

*Massive orders for A320's and 787's, none of which are currently slated for mainline but are to be paid from Qantas cash flow. The plan however is for used 787's to go to mainline, once their Boeing supplied free maintenance is used. Nowhere is this acknowledged except in the pronouncements of various execs that "The LCC model doesn't work unless you have new aircraft..".. Now we know why.

* Steadily shrinking profits announced and attributed to Qantas International, even though load factors remain stubbornly high and higher than Jetstar International.

* 8 A380 slated for mainline are effectively cancelled. 747's and 767's are removed from the fleet and not replaced. Joyce states that not one penny will be invested in mainline till it shows a profit. (??!!) This is because all the spare cash is going to paying for 110 A320's for Jetstar.

* Used A330's returned to mainline. The finish of 787 deliveries coincides with the projected "turnaround" of Mainline International. This probably means that the cash flow needed to physically buy the 787's reduces and can be put towards an actual profit. Nowhere is it acknowledged that the "losses" of mainline are actually the cost of buying A320's and 787's for Jetstar.

Or am I being cynical?

hotnhigh
15th Oct 2013, 04:00
Kremin another way of looking at it...
The entire investment community with an interest in qantas has been sold a pup.
Still, we all need heroes. Another view point....
First ten pages are a bit heavy but read from 11 onwards...
www.apira2013.org/proceedings/pdfs/K256.pdf

Ollie Onion
15th Oct 2013, 06:03
I don't see why we are suprised that numbers are distributed around the 'group' as and when it suits. I own three properties, they are run under a 'company' banner and depending on what my accountant thinks some are profitable in some years at the expense of others and then it may change the next year. Depends what 'mix' gives me the best overall return for my company.

I know it is a different scale, but is doesn't suprise me that over the past few years it has 'suited' the group to show Qantas International as a bit of a basket case to enable the board to force their agenda (whatever that may be), it will no doubt be an amazing reversal over the next couple of years once they are done.

Constantly winding ourselves up about this 'less than commercial' rates type stuff will drive you insane. The company report what and how they are legally required to do, beyond that it is up to them if they want 'cook' the books for the benefit of gaining leverage against the staff. Sad but true.

toolish
15th Oct 2013, 06:52
Onion

Couldn't agree more

ASY68
15th Oct 2013, 07:27
Just a side note VFT was slated for JQHK and has ended up down here... that could be why they have a different company.

It will be interesting to see how VA goes with TT potentially on the same mindset...

Jetbest
15th Oct 2013, 08:12
Going through immigration yesterday and a QF 330 S/O said hi. Had been called in as third crew member as flight time was to high for 2 crew operations due winds,7hrs 25 mins. Our flight time 2 crew was 9hrs 15 mins 2 crew.
Your award is extremely generous and is one of the main reasons for the transfer of flying. Enjoy it and stop blaming JQ for your position.

Stalins ugly Brother
15th Oct 2013, 08:39
Jetbest,

That is complete bullshit and a misleading post. The two guys were going over 30 hours in 7 days and required an s/o to go past that requirement.

Stick to the facts and don't spin BS to hide the fact that you and your like are accepting t&c that has the aviation industry in Australia in a tailspin. :ugh:

Buckshot
15th Oct 2013, 08:39
Ollie, I take your point with the creative accounting between businesses within one parent group but the difference is that your three properties don't each have employees whose livelihoods are impacted or shareholders who suffer.

Jetsbest
15th Oct 2013, 09:08
I'm only posting lest someone thinks I am you!

Why gloat over what some might view as an idiotic 2-pilot ToD? Some might argue that the QF award is extremely sensible w.r.t. FTLs and has contributed to the safety record QF so obviously enjoys and trades upon.... even to the point of allowing the misconception that all parts of 'the Group' work under the same safe, sensible rules. :rolleyes:

and...

please consider getting another name. :hmm:

JETSBEST; the original. :ok:

Tony the Tiler
15th Oct 2013, 09:16
My theory..?

International was doing just fine in 2008. It was the major contributor to the record profit attained that year. Enter Joyce and the "Promote Jetstar at all costs," mantra.

So what has happened since then?

The GFC. Where have you been living?

spotfx
15th Oct 2013, 12:15
Quote: QAL don't normally bother with local leasing companies as they can finance the aircraft far cheaper themselves.


Oh really?
Here are the last few A320's received by Jetstar. Some are owned by Qantas, some are owned by leasing companies. Why doesn't Qantas use leasing companies for all of them?


See my reference to local leasing companies. There is no conspiracy between former Qantas execs and who they now use for leasing, as you suggested earlier.

QAL use whomever and whatever structure can provide them with the cheapest cost of funding. Most of the time this is bank debt or capital markets issuances through the usual international financing suspects. Even the US Government has provided financing through Ex-Im for the 744ERs.

QAL's balance sheet doesn't have the free cash flow capacity to support outright purchases of aircraft for long periods. They will purchase the aircraft and then promptly use the aircraft as collateral for financing purposes.


Full Registration
Registration holder as of 25 January 2013
WINTER MSN 5489 LIMITED
Block B, Riverside IV Sir John Rogersons Quay
...
Full Registration
Registration holder as of 21 May 2013
BOC AVIATION (USA) CORPORATION
C/O BOC Aviation Pte. Ltd., 8, Shenton Way, #18-01



WINTER MSN 5489 Limited is an Irish Special Purpose Vehicle setup by a subsidiary of hedge fund Terra Firma, who then issue debt securities against this aircraft and the creditworthiness of QAL and JetStar. This is the structure they (and many hedge funds) utilise. Ultimately most of the cash for this aircraft comes from Nomura and Morgan Stanley.

BOC AVIATION (USA) Corporation is Bank of China's aircraft lending division - with funding coming from the entire Chinese economy.

Alas there is really no hidden conspiracy here. Cross-border aircraft financing was my bread-and-butter for 10 years, and Qantas were one of the best airlines in the business for negotiating with their financiers.

Angle of Attack
15th Oct 2013, 12:35
Jetbest,
I have beaten that hands down!
26.50 tour of duty 2 pilot on the QF shorthaul award! Beat that! Even Jetstar couldnt!

Going Boeing
15th Oct 2013, 20:52
Posted by Tony the Tiler

The GFC. Where have you been living?

Tony, since the GFC the QF Mainline loads (including QF International) have held up very well - the yields have reduced but nowhere near the sudden reversal of profits that occurred when Joyce took over. He pulled us off the FRA route despite the route having a yearly load factor of 83% (he also killed the AKL-LAX route due to the changes that he made).

As things currently stand, the loads/yields that QF International are currently experiencing do not reflect the "losses" that this management are reporting.

Ollie Onion
16th Oct 2013, 07:48
Buckshot,

I totally agree, problem these days is that head office management are so removed from the day to day employees they start to view us just as I would view chattels in my properties. I am always surprised how little 'compassion' figures in some of these decisions, unfortunately hat is the world we live in.

Tony the Tiler
16th Oct 2013, 10:32
EITHER:

The Auditors, Accounting Firms, Banks, Institutional Investors, Senior Management, the Chairman along with the entire Board - are all conspiring (illegally) to falsify documents required under continuous disclosure requirements for publicly listed companies - to mislead you into believing that Jetstar is profitable and Qantas International is losing money….

OR:

Jetstar is profitable and Qantas International is losing money.

V-Jet
16th Oct 2013, 11:01
People believe what they want to.

I've spent a couple of years financing a business purchase. I spoke to a number of complete tools at banks but one of the more outstanding cretins I met was with a very well known Aussie bank. I got to the stage where I might have made it clear to the cretin that he was a cretin and then interesting stuff came out. My deal wasn't important because he had a meeting in a few hours with Elaine who was one of his 'major' clients. I was naturally totally enthralled that I might be meeting someone who mixed in such exalted circles and heard the biggest concoction of bull dust I have ever heard. It was clear that neither this idiot banker or his idiot client knew the first thing about airlines, or indeed even selling a bag of mixed lollies at a school tuck shop. It was sickening to listen to.

Bankers etc 'want' to drink idiots Kool Aid because their bonuses depend on them believing it enough to convince their superiors to get their deal across the line. And as one smart one told me 'It doesn't matter if you turn out to have been wrong, as long as the argument is strong enough to hold water when you present it'.

Castles made of sand. Like subprime, the piper will need to be paid. And it's not the frauds and idiots that cause the problems who end up paying....

FYSTI
16th Oct 2013, 21:37
Tony, I call bullsh!t on your binary choice false paradigm. The world is grey, not black and white. It is a question of language, definitions and fine print.

The following AASB extract will demonstrate that the accounting standards give large scope & flexibility to an organisation for its own internal accounts. Provided the internal policies meet the what is required under the standard, the auditor can sign-off. The organisation can then go and make public statements about their profit on their loss on the basis of "The Standard" by external examination. So it is a question of what "The Standard" allows. This is not be a binary OR choice as you assert. It is a game of words, footnotes and subtleties.

Normally the internal accounting machinations are "netted out on consolidation", and thus have no effect on overall P&L of the entity. However, when those internal accounts are used to prosecute an Industrial Relations or other agenda, a much closer look needs to be taken at those accounts, and what "The Standard" says. The Standard says revenues & expenses can be allocated on a reasonable basis. Define reasonable in a highly complex operating system involving hundreds of internal entities operating across multiple opaque jurisdictions with revenues in multiple currencies. Do you really believe an external auditor could reasonably be expected to have the ability to verify the reasonableness of all internal segment revenues and expenses?

I am not alleging any illegality, just the opposite. All the groups you mention are operating completely within the law & accounting standards, to the letter. However, the letter of the law gives much flexibility. It is a question of what the The Standard says. These groups are not lying, however, equally they haven't provided any evidence as to the basis of their assertions. Because these statements cannot be falsified on the information provided, they are completely without meaning.

It is remarkably simple, release the internal accounts for QF International including footnotes. Without these accounts, there is no way to verify what effect segment accounting has its or any other group entities P&L within the overall group structure. Without the accounts including notes, segment P&L cannot be determined.

AASB 114 Segment Reporting (http://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content105/c9/AASB114_07-04_COMPsep05.pdf)

Look closely at the definition of Segment Revenue & Segment expenses [pages 12 ~ 13]

Segment accounting policies are the accounting policies adopted for preparing and presenting the financial reports of the consolidated group or entity as well as those accounting policies that relate specifically to segment reporting.

17. The definitions of
segment revenue segment expense segment assets and segment liabilities include amounts of such items that are directly attributable to a segment and amounts of such items that can be allocated to a segment on a reasonable basis. An entity looks to its internal financial reporting system as the starting point for identifying those items that can be directly attributed, or reasonably allocated, to segments. That is, there is a presumption that amounts that have been identified with segments for internal financial reporting purposes are directly attributable or reasonably allocable to segments for the purpose of measuring the segment revenue, segment expense, segment assets, and segment liabilities of reportable segments.


18. In some cases, however, a revenue, expense, asset, or liability may have been allocated to segments for internal financial reporting purposes on a basis that is understood by entity management but that could be deemed subjective, arbitrary, or difficult to understand by external users of financial reports. Such an allocation would not constitute a reasonable basis under the definitions of segment revenue, segment expense, segment assets, and segment liabilities in this Standard. Conversely, an entity may choose not to allocate some item of revenue, expense, asset, or liability for internal financial reporting purposes, even though a reasonable basis for doing so exists. Such an item is allocated pursuant to the definitions of segment revenue, segment expense, segment assets, and segment liabilities in this Standard.

cloudsurfng
17th Oct 2013, 02:53
As a qualified Chartered Accountant, an ex senior manager in one of the 'big 4' firms, I can tell you with absolute certainty that an audit is not worth the paper its written on. Infact, it was the first statement of the lecturer at uni in audit 101, many years ago.

It does not guarantee that the accounts are correct, it merely states that in their belief, with the limited information they have seen, they dont believe that there are any material errors in the accounts. 'material' varies from client to client, and is based on a risk assessment including the industry, job separation etc etc. It is a very loose concept.

There could quite easily be many falsifications within the QF/JQ framework.

The overall position of the company may be the same, if, as we suspect, cost allocation etc is questionable. It is just the segments (ie Q DOM, JQ, FF etc) that will change.

Mstr Caution
4th Nov 2013, 07:48
The 787's were suppose to be online in 9 days.

Any updates?

V-Jet
4th Nov 2013, 08:11
Engines/mounts and pax evac issues?

1a sound asleep
5th Nov 2013, 11:01
NO CASA approval. Too many seats and not enough doors:}

Jacana
5th Nov 2013, 20:47
"NO CASA approval. Too many seats and not enough doorshttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif "

Wrong - should be doing service flights within a Cpl of weeks as always planned. First leg Mel - Jakarta.

OneDotLow
5th Nov 2013, 20:55
Wasn't it supposed to be doing domestic pax revenue sectors at first, Jacana?

Jacana
5th Nov 2013, 21:09
No just did a showcase tour of the ports for family days. I believe pilots are being trained in Mel and first revenue in a Cpl of weeks. That's the last I heard a few days ago. Of course this may have changed..

Ken Borough
5th Nov 2013, 21:30
More [email protected] on PPRUNE? According to JQ's current press releases, the 787 will operate MEL to Cairns and Cooly for a few weeks and then start Melbourne /Bali in mid December. Domestic flights will start later this month.

Jacana
5th Nov 2013, 21:37
Hence the reason I said "of course this could have changed", Ken

FYSTI
5th Nov 2013, 22:12
Total Posts: 21
Posts Per Day: 1.32
Find all posts by Jacana (http://www.pprune.org/search.php?do=finduser&u=420402)
Find all threads started by Jacana (http://www.pprune.org/search.php?do=finduser&u=420402&starteronly=1)

General Information

Last Activity: 5th Nov 2013 22:38
Join Date: 21st Oct 2013

Waste of bandwidth, straight to the ignore lis (http://www.pprune.org/profile.php?do=ignorelist)t.