PDA

View Full Version : Has Joyce forgotten how to count? The end of ME transits?


Tuck Mach
4th May 2017, 09:38
In keeping with fact, let us examine the numbers closely.



Alan Joyce started as CEO Qantas 28 November 2008.
Qantas for the FY2008 carried 458,182 passengers to the UK.
Qantas carried FY2016 carried 281,365 passengers to the UK.

In 2008, Qantas went to London via Singapore, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Having sacrificed these proven routes, servicing the domestic and international network with 188 aircraft, Alan and Leigh killed 36% of QF passengers flying to the UK, not bad work in eight short years. Did they not notice the NEGATIVE sign?


Is Alan and the sparsely 'aviation experienced' board prone to making hap hazard decisions? Is Dubai another



JQ HK,
An AOC split that didn't happen,
An airline needing a $3billion bailout in 2013, then not six weeks later?
Red Q
An airline in 'terminal' decline
A 'transformed' Qantas international?
A game changer aircraft? (the 787) with hull numbers in the six hundreds? (Any games changed by the aircraft have been changed for other airlines!)


Given there are big questions and zero statements outlining any tangible evidence of any benefit from the EK 'alliance' Does Qantas see a single dollar out of the 'partnership?'


In the same period the 'empire' threw 80 odd aircraft at JQ, growing it from 36 aircraft. They cut 80 odd from Qantas.The 'famous Asian pivot strategy' has worked a treat, swapping JQ for Qantas and giving customers a choice; change airline!....The Asian 'pivot' applauded by Colonel Custer as he purveyed the coming battle, worked out as well as Little Big horn and generated benefits.....for other airlines :E



Since the EK 'partnership' bestowed unexplained and unqualified benefits on QF shareholders starting on April fool's day 2013, how did the competitors do?:




SIA grew passenger numbers by5.1% via Singapore,
Cathay grew passenger numbers 36% via Hong Kong
Thai lost a bit of market share* via Bangkok

* Hard to tell whether the downgrading of Thailand by the FAA or the instability of the government is the factor. This year's numbers will be interesting.


Given the little fella's inability to state any tangible commercial benefit from an 'Alliance' and passengers sticking to the tried and trusted Asian routes, perhaps QF may be grateful that the 'partnership' providing so much was only five years long.....


Is that why having finally got a new aircraft and Alan being stopped from any more (costly for the QF shareholder) dalliances in Asia, Qantas is desperately trying to spin an 18 hour Y class nightmare on a 787 as a viable alternative to going to Dubai? Just what did the hastily signed deal contain? Asia seems to be a great alternative, something Joyce screamed long and hard was part of the past. Passengers suggest otherwise.



Isn't it about time that fuel price falls and fleet impairment(depreciation reduction) weren't the only sources of tangible return?

cattletruck
4th May 2017, 10:49
Has Joyce forgotten how to count?
No, not when it comes to his remuneration (or that of other board members).

As far as executives go, they may be a little late on the scene with their "it's all about me" rewarding but these trends have a habit of catching up eventually.

p.j.m
4th May 2017, 11:31
Alan Joyce started as CEO Qantas 28 November 2008.
Qantas for the FY2008 carried 458,182 passengers to the UK.
Qantas carried FY2016 carried 281,365 passengers to the UK.

Fair suck of the sav, they were "low value customers" - any bean counter will tell you they only want "high value customers":D

Seems to be an endemic problem actually, beancounters driving companies into the ground to provide better shareholder value.

Short term thinking, Of course these people won't be around to pick up the pieces, when the company goes bankrupt.

Tuck Mach
4th May 2017, 11:41
But Qantas management forgot that low cost also means low fares, with low yields. Them low value customers on JQ don't seem to pay the bills either!

I recall the 'Administration' of Ansett taking about 10 years. Korda Mentha even formed their own firm!! They were the first to get paid and the last to leave: Paid for ten years after the last revenue flight...
Qantas head count to aircraft ratio is alarmingly high, a great empire the little General has built adoring him. Buildings full of them, working the break out rooms, taking extra day of annual leave to make a four day weekend...All the whilst helping the little fella shrink (pun intended) his way to greatness and the airline too.......




But is the Qantas management team worth it when compared to the performance of peer airlines? From 2009 to 2015 Singapore Airlines made an aggregate net profit after tax of $3.5 billion; Cathay Pacific $4.8 billion; and Air New Zealand $898 million.
Qantas in the same period lost $2.1 billion but its CEO earned almost 50 per cent more than Singapore Airlines' CEO.
Quite right, one thing he knows how to count is his own STIP...LTIP even more interesting :E

AEROMEDIC
4th May 2017, 12:06
Just what did the hastily signed deal contain?

Indeed! What did Alan do in that last 30 minutes before coming out to the awaiting press?
It was admitted that the deal was not done until then so someone had to give way. I found it hard to see that there was benefit to Qantas in this arrangement, although it was argued by some that the BA alliance wasn't to flash either.
Was it simply a matter of an alliance HAD to be agreed by Qantas? It seems that having an alliance with SOMEONE rather than NO-ONE,was the "lesser of the evils."
I find it difficult to believe that Tim Clark gave in to Joyce.

Tuck Mach
4th May 2017, 12:10
Was it simply a matter of an alliance HAD to be agreed by Qantas? It seems that having an alliance with SOMEONE rather than NO-ONE,was the "lesser of the evils."
I find it difficult to believe that Tim Clark gave in to Joyce.

Exactly Aeromedic...

Corporate sources tell me the 'shuttle diplomacy' made whistle stops in many South East Asian HQ before ending up in Dubai..

Derfred
4th May 2017, 13:03
In the same period the 'empire' threw 80 odd aircraft at JQ, growing it from 36 aircraft. They cut 80 odd from Qantas.

(my bold)

Tuck Mach, you have pedalled this "statistic" numerous times now, in numerous threads on this and other forums, without any substantiation.

Do you actually believe this to be true, or are you subscribing to the trendy alternative facts philosophy that if you state an untruth over and over again, it becomes true?

Now, I am no apologist for management in their infatuation with the Orange star at the expense of the core product, but quoting gross untruths detracts from your argument and your credibility.

According to page 23 of the 2008 Annual Report (http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/investors/2008AnnualReport.pdf):
The Qantas passenger fleet size was 188 (including QantasLink).
The Jetstar fleet size was 36 (no mention of whether that included Jetstar Asia, which numbered 4 - the way the report was structured implied that it did not).

According to page 43 of the 2016 Data Sheet (http://investor.qantas.com/FormBuilder/_Resource/_module/doLLG5ufYkCyEPjF1tpgyw/file/data-book/2016qantasdatabook.pdf#page43):
The Qantas passenger fleet size was 191 (including QantasLink, but excluding Network which numbered an additional 14).
The Jetstar fleet size was 93 (including Jetstar Asia).

So the actual truth seems to be that the Qantas fleet increased by 3, plus another 14 for Network. Network has been (or is being) rebranded and repainted QantasLink.

The Jetstar fleet (including Jetstar Asia) increased by at most 57, or more probably 53 if the 2008 figure did not include Jetstar Asia.

Edit: Jetstar Asia has grown from 4 to 18 in the same period I believe - I have no official source for that. So the Jetstar AU/NZ operation would appear to have increased from 36 to 75, a growth of 39. This includes the Bombardiers sent over from Qantaslink to Jetstar NZ. Jetstar Japan is not included in any of the figures. I believe Jetstar Japan has 20. That would bring the global Jetstar increase to 73 (or possibly 77).

If you just want to talk Qantas (not QantasLink and associated subsidiaries), the fleet has increased from 124 to 126, an increase of 2. That's 737's and larger.

Regards, Fred

Beer Baron
4th May 2017, 13:59
Seriously, what is the point of this thread?? Tuck Mach, you started another thread just 3 weeks ago with almost the same rant. http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/593525-where-revenue-alan-ek-alliance.html
You replied to your own post 8 more times with more of your well worn diatribe, your latest post there being only 3 days ago. Now you start a whole new thread to repeat the same anti-Joyce rhetoric all over again!!!
Yes, some of your points are valid, some are completely irrelevant and some no one on here can actually know about. But why the fire hose of bile? And how many threads do you need to rehash the same arguments again and again?

RodH
4th May 2017, 20:05
One thing that has me very puzzled. As Tuck Mach has so correctly stated it seems very suspicious that Alan pleaded for 3 Billion otherwise QF would be in real trouble then with some clever Accounting showed a turnaround/ profit 6 weeks later. Someone is not telling the truth IMOP!! and I reckon I know who.
Why has there not been any questions asked about this possible untruth?
Looks like protecting the " Rat " again to me .

V-Jet
4th May 2017, 23:31
Yes, some of your points are valid, some are completely irrelevant and some no one on here can actually know about. But why the fire hose of bile? And how many threads do you need to rehash the same arguments again and again?

Hopefully until someone who matters (a reasonably big shareholder) notices and actually asks sensible questions before the music stops, or slows down terminally. I like your term 'fire hose of bile' - but I struggle to come up with one to describe how the Little Green Napolean treats his staff and shareholders company. Would it be a Tsunami? an Avalanche? a Niagra? A fire hose just wouldn't cut it...

CharlieLimaX-Ray
5th May 2017, 00:19
Must be those pesky travel agents, not recommending the red roo!

Last time we travelled to Europe the travel agent booked us Singapore, he muttered something about being a better product and a more competitive airfare.

porch monkey
5th May 2017, 01:00
Whether it is creative accounting, stripping assets, mismanaging anything else, you gotta admit, he's managed it again. $1.4 bill this time...... While the opposition still loses money......

coaldemon
5th May 2017, 01:36
Depending on the fine print it is pretty hard to argue that QF are not going pretty well in comparison with the opposition (although you never know what JB might pull out of the hat). Seems the FF program really is critical for their success though

neville_nobody
5th May 2017, 02:07
The thing they gets me is that there is alot of complaining about QF over the years, dodgy accounting, hiding this and that, using Jetstar etc. However end of the day they are the ones who are making a profit and look to be in a very strong position. Probably not as strong they as claim yet strong none the less. With VA struggling to even get an aircraft airborne, I don't quite know what all the postulating about QF's woes is about. People have been talking doom and gloom about QF for 20+ years yet it has all come to naught.

Tuck Mach
5th May 2017, 03:30
According to page 43 of the 2016 Data Sheet (http://investor.qantas.com/FormBuilder/_Resource/_module/doLLG5ufYkCyEPjF1tpgyw/file/data-book/2016qantasdatabook.pdf#page43):
The Qantas passenger fleet size was 191 (including QantasLink, but excluding Network which numbered an additional 14).
The Jetstar fleet size was 93 (including Jetstar Asia).

So the actual truth seems to be that the Qantas fleet increased by 3, plus another 14 for Network. Network has been (or is being) rebranded and repainted QantasLink.

The Jetstar fleet (including Jetstar Asia) increased by at most 57, or more probably 53 if the 2008 figure did not include Jetstar Asia.
Fair point Fred, Perhaps I ought point out that there are multiple sources of data, which is why the crosscheck needs to be done.
Let us delve into the Qantas data book, data they provide by choice.

Under AASB128, associate entities are those where substantial influence exists but not control. Those familiar with the JQ HK decision will recall that control of the operation did not rest in HK. It was despite Jayne's protest found to reside in Coward Street.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-25/hong-kong-rejects-jetstar-hk-application-to-fly-from-the-city

Given the JQ Asia fleet wasn't purchased by Dennis Choo, nor was JQ Pacific or Japan, despite associate entity status, and equity accounting the 'investment' aircraft can and likely are sourced by Qantas and 'leased' perhaps at a surprisingly generous rate to the foreign owned entity...
This is why the accounting standard (with respect to treatment of leasing exposure) alignment due next year will be be fascinating...

Therefore adding

JQ Japan 21
JQ pacific 14

To the JQ fleet Qantas tell you about of 93 aircraft gets us 128. A rapid increase from when Joyce assumed control in 2008.

I am not seeing an net increase of three aircraft for Qantas mainline., Of course you need to subtract the aircraft operated by Cobham and Jetconnect, which Qantas choose to include in their data book .My count suggests a numerical decline in the Qantas mainline fleet and former colleagues are probably still feeling the effects of a lost decade or so..Respectfully Fred though I take the point

Icarus2001
5th May 2017, 04:23
With VA struggling to even get an aircraft airborne,

I think they managed to get a few airborne yesterday.

keepitrealok
5th May 2017, 04:33
Neville,

I think it comes down to this.

There are the pilots who are in Qantas, some of which have seen the career path they thought they would have when they joined disappear due to the direction QF Management has taken the Group. A very small number of them will come on here and comment that it is the destruction of QF, and probably believe they should be the CEO.

Then there are the pilots who aren't in QF, but tried to get in. A very small number of them will have a heavy chip on the shoulder about not being selected, so they will come on here and cry the downfall of QF because they need it to fail to feel better about themselves, and prove Qantas was wrong (in not employing them.) It's completely irrational - very good people get missed in every field, that is life unfortunately - but a path some follow.

It's also an anonymous board where people just come on to stir the pot. :p

AerialPerspective
5th May 2017, 04:59
Neville,

I think it comes down to this.

There are the pilots who are in Qantas, some of which have seen the career path they thought they would have when they joined disappear due to the direction QF Management has taken the Group. A very small number of them will come on here and comment that it is the destruction of QF, and probably believe they should be the CEO.

Then there are the pilots who aren't in QF, but tried to get in. A very small number of them will have a heavy chip on the shoulder about not being selected, so they will come on here and cry the downfall of QF because they need it to fail to feel better about themselves, and prove Qantas was wrong (in not employing them.) It's completely irrational - very good people get missed in every field, that is life unfortunately - but a path some follow.

It's also an anonymous board where people just come on to stir the pot. :p
That's a pretty accurate summation I would say keepitreakok.

V-Jet
5th May 2017, 10:34
It would just be so good to work for a company whose management actually wanted it to prosper and above all, didn't use it as a personal piggy bank. Simple expectations, one might have thought...

Derfred
5th May 2017, 11:04
You mean like an emolyment contract that says something like: "If you do well, we'll pay you $13M. But if you totally screw up, we'll only pay you $2.5M. But we'll keep you on... don't worry, the industry is cyclic. You'll get your $13M soon enough... (then quietly: just write down a few assets and buy back a few shares... it's a guaranteed winner!)

Tuck Mach
5th May 2017, 22:07
The 'lost decade' at Qantas sums it up for pilots...

The point of this thread is to show the accounting shell game. those in the know are aware all companies play them with assets, jurisdiction and timings.

The Qantas exception is to claim that the Qantas International business was 'terminal' then 'transformed' If one takes out the impact of fuel (of which QF burns a lot per ASK due fleet composition) and a management chosen timing write down of fleet, the 'transformation' is highly dubious.

Those of us looking (transformation benefits) at it have not found substantive documentation detailing precisely what has been saved, what is present are statements in glossy brochures with no substantive breakdown, not a shred of it....

The EK alliance deserves exactly the same scrutiny. In the other thread, examining the consolidated accounts, there is not a financial upside. This thread is suggesting that publicly available information suggests there is no passenger upside. The Asian pivot and JQ expansion needed capital and shrinking QF (circumventing the QSA) is how they did it.

If one can be bothered, the plethora of data provided on passengers carried, the ports flown to and the airline that carried them also suggest strongly there is no upside.

An analysis of statements made mostly by Joyce, relating to the EK alliance speak exclusively of customer benefits, access to European ports and so forth. If one examines the ASX listing rules and indeed the Corporations Act 2001, perhaps that explains the reason why..

Some readers of this forum may be happily comfortable flying the Pacific protected to a degree by seniority. For them aviation was a different animal than today. They needn't bother, but to those who wasted their years at Qantas, myself included, being financially literate is a necessary addition in an industry, and company in particular where management manipulation of people, figures and the customer is a fine art.

Gamechanger
5th May 2017, 22:51
Qantas just made two of the largest profits in its 95 year history.
1.8 billon and 1.4 billion respectively.
Alan Joyce has just made two of his largest personal bonuses apart from 2007.
As Derfred made reference, Alan's free granted options are worth more than 40 million dollars. Joyce will pull close to or over 100 million dollars by the time he goes. Not bad for a business that we are told is "Risky, marginal, highly competitive".
The Terminal decline was just an accounting write down and a tool to drive concessions from staff and unions.
Every work group took an 18 month freeze.
The pilots took the biggest reduction to "win" the 8 787 orders that will replace 5 Jumbos. No overtime on 19.5 Hour duties, no night credits, lower overall take home pay. Yes in ten years when it May slowly replace he A330 to Asia it may Be line ball with 2015 pay in 2028.
Still waiting for that "big" 787 further orders announcement? Let me know when it happens. Ain't that stock market spooked easily.

Click your fingers and the "Terminal Decline" became an amazing "Turnaround" and QF hit two profit records in a row.

Even if Qantas continued making record profits, the pilot Shortage got even worse, Contract pilots in China made 500k a year, Qantas pilots would reduce their pay, work harder and end up worse off just to get any new aircraft because they fall for management rumours, get easily spooked and race each other to the bottom for the next shiny toy.
Qantas management are smarter than pilots, have excellent strategies to know your mindset to get concessions from you, and are ultimately superior negotiators.

Pilots are experts at securing a worse deal during the best times.
But there will be pressures, declines, market uncertainty etc etc during the next replacement Agreement and QF and Alan will win again. Bigly.

AerialPerspective
6th May 2017, 16:06
The 'lost decade' at Qantas sums it up for pilots...

The point of this thread is to show the accounting shell game. those in the know are aware all companies play them with assets, jurisdiction and timings.

The Qantas exception is to claim that the Qantas International business was 'terminal' then 'transformed' If one takes out the impact of fuel (of which QF burns a lot per ASK due fleet composition) and a management chosen timing write down of fleet, the 'transformation' is highly dubious.

Those of us looking (transformation benefits) at it have not found substantive documentation detailing precisely what has been saved, what is present are statements in glossy brochures with no substantive breakdown, not a shred of it....

The EK alliance deserves exactly the same scrutiny. In the other thread, examining the consolidated accounts, there is not a financial upside. This thread is suggesting that publicly available information suggests there is no passenger upside. The Asian pivot and JQ expansion needed capital and shrinking QF (circumventing the QSA) is how they did it.

If one can be bothered, the plethora of data provided on passengers carried, the ports flown to and the airline that carried them also suggest strongly there is no upside.

An analysis of statements made mostly by Joyce, relating to the EK alliance speak exclusively of customer benefits, access to European ports and so forth. If one examines the ASX listing rules and indeed the Corporations Act 2001, perhaps that explains the reason why..

Some readers of this forum may be happily comfortable flying the Pacific protected to a degree by seniority. For them aviation was a different animal than today. They needn't bother, but to those who wasted their years at Qantas, myself included, being financially literate is a necessary addition in an industry, and company in particular where management manipulation of people, figures and the customer is a fine art.
I have Annual Reports going back to the mid nineties and earlier (I have some from the 70s/80s).

In any case, the one thing that I recall standing out from the period roughly 1995 through to mid 2000s is that on many occasions the accounts in the summary mentioned that "... the Company's International operation continues to perform strongly and carry the rest of the group..." or words to that effect... this was obviously saying that domestic was struggling (TN of course was a loss-maker before QF took it over or in years it made profits they were nothing like what it should have made)... the interesting thing is that, unless I'm mistaken, International performance was weighted by it's contribution to domestic in terms of it's share of revenue/profit from oncarriage passengers... e.g. domestically located pax buying tickets on QF DOM is QF DOM's money and interline business won from other airlines bringing people into the country but those that originated where QF INTL did the selling, etc. were accounted for against QF INTL.

The only thing that's changed is that it suited the narrative to make International a 'basket case' by saying it "... hasn't met the cost of its capital since the mid nineties".

The arrant stupidity of that statement is profound... how is it that it couldn't meet that cost of capital if the company's own reports were championing it for it's substantial contribution to results.

The other stupidity is that even if such were true, it is not ever able to in an environment where it feeds the domestic network and delivers the majority of its revenue (or at least a substantial amount) and has to buy very big, very long range aeroplanes to do so... I'd say there's an argument for DOM to pay its share of the QF INTL capital due to the reward it receives in return from all those oncarriage pax.

It suited the narrative to change the story because they wanted to make it look like a basket case in order to get something else.

It's no different to Strong claiming he'd "turned the airline around" when the profit went from something like $180m to $450m within a year... of course, what he didn't mention was that the only reason that happened was because Ward had to raise a very expensive loan to buy Australian for $400m to ensure they got it and didn't have to set up their own domestic operation from scratch rather than let it go to a competitor overseas airline AND between his departure and Strong starting, the government floated the airline and the Keating Govt. 'gave' $1.1bn of the proceeds back to Qantas as a capital injection (the money was chicken feed for the Commonwealth which administered an economy with GDP approach a trillion dollars and it satisfied a condition that Keating agreed to that the company be properly capitalized which allowed him to get WAY over the final price from BA for their 25%.

Modern management (as opposed to previous QF CEOs who usually had worked their way up and loved the company) is based on spin and 'perception' or rather creating a perception to suite the reality that they wish to establish.

Gamechanger
6th May 2017, 22:58
.When the Australian dollar is weaker International historically performs very well with increased international inbound tourists visiting Australia. Cost base is also very competitive. Dixon always said that it acts as a shock absorber in times especially when the Australian economy is weaker.
International struggled after 2008 till 2014 for many reasons. Primarily the high Australian Dollar and sky high fuel prices, with close to the oldest fleet in the world. Gareth Evans actually said it was the perfect storm.

.International is essential in having a reliable source of feed to Domestic operations and Jetstar. Remove it and you starve it of much of its feed.
EK flies to every capital city except Darwin,Cairns and Hobart so it's feed into QF domestic is negligible. Hence Qantas International is vital in order to feed QF and JQ domestic with certainty.

.The majority of Frequent Flyer points are earned Domestically but redeemed and desired on QF international routes. Look at the business and first upgrade requests on any Qantas flights to LHR,LAX, DXB,DFW,HNL,SFO,SIN, HKG etc. Hence the very profitable FF business is dependent on QF International. The frequent flyer program is not desirable or sustainable without a decent Qantas International

.In summary the International part of the business is as small as it can be now.

CurtainTwitcher
7th May 2017, 00:25
What are you suggesting Gamechanger, that you simply can't look at things as isolated, narrow accounting silo's? Goodness, whats next? Synergies and the Network Effect?

Gamechanger
7th May 2017, 08:09
Exactly.
Joyce will talk down International during EBA times and sing it's record returns on equity, profitability and turnaround come bonus time.
Fact is domestic, Jetstar and Frequent Flyer are screwed without its feed inbound and outbound, without it being the minimum the size it is today.
Qantas can't rely on codeshares to do everything. And if you look at EK it gives Qantas minimal feed in.
Admittedly QF has shrunk A LOT but it won't get significantly smaller than it is now.

V-Jet
7th May 2017, 12:07
Exactly. QF has shrunk A LOT but it won't get significantly smaller than it is now.

Because it can't. Or it won't exist. Ipso facto:(

Lezzeno
7th May 2017, 15:43
AerialPerspective and Gamechanger you have both made same big statements regarding QF Domestic reliance on QF International. Can either of you provide raw data numbers of inbound and outbound feed from INT to DOM? Number of pax fed between INT and DOM versus total number of DOM pax carried for the last year (or any recent year) will do. That way the rest of us can make up our own minds.

Sunfish
7th May 2017, 21:04
going overseas twice shortly, europe and asia. singapore business class both trips. i didn't even bother to get a quote from QF.

angryrat
8th May 2017, 00:52
going overseas twice shortly, europe and asia. singapore business class both trips. i didn't even bother to get a quote from QF.

Good for you Jim. And we care because?

V-Jet
8th May 2017, 02:14
Good for you Jim. And we care because?


I see it as significant. Yes you can write the comment off as an aside, but look at it this way. 10-15 years ago (certainly 20) it would have been inconceivable not to have at the VERY least considered Qf, most simply purchased Qf as a matter of course, if not partly national pride. Nowadays, not so much.

Tuck Mach
8th May 2017, 02:34
On October 11, 2011, Joyce telegraphed the game to the International Air Services Commission. The written correspondence is public record.

This was just before the lockout, you know the one Joyce thought up by himself, just on the day?

The application indicates that the Qantas International network by DESIGN was to reduce to TWO daily London slots.(what does it look like now?)
All of the biliateral agreements to Europe other than those TWO were to be flown by Group subsidiary (effectively granted national carrier designation: Jetstar!)

It didn't work, Boston Bruce left and Joyce rushed off to Dubai, desperate to plug a massive hole in the numbers...of his own making...The EK alliance provides very little if anything at the threshold of benefit. What it did do was give some domestic feed into Australia.However Qantas choose not to substantiate how much. It is likely it is negligible and less than they killed off from Europe. Desperate to kill the company IR style they did not comprehend the 'interconnectedness' of the company and therefore a hastily convened 'alliance' was signed....

The tide will again recede. Qantas under Joyce always swam naked. Joyce's 'alliance' makes neither money nor many passengers for the 'group'. His stupidity and arrogance only outdone by lack of critical analysis and laziness of many, including the regulators,parliament, the media, and indeed many staff.

angryrat
8th May 2017, 03:24
I see it as significant. Yes you can write the comment off as an aside, but look at it this way. 10-15 years ago (certainly 20) it would have been inconceivable not to have at the VERY least considered Qf, most simply purchased Qf as a matter of course, if not partly national pride. Nowadays, not so much.
Things change V-Jet. Some people don't buy Australian for whatever reason. It's none of my business why they do or don't and I don't care if they decide that's their chosen path. I'm well past someone trying to throw Singapore Airlines or Virgin in my face, if they haven't considered Qantas, nothing I say or do will change their mind because they have already made up their mind.

AerialPerspective
8th May 2017, 11:21
On October 11, 2011, Joyce telegraphed the game to the International Air Services Commission. The written correspondence is public record.

This was just before the lockout, you know the one Joyce thought up by himself, just on the day?

The application indicates that the Qantas International network by DESIGN was to reduce to TWO daily London slots.(what does it look like now?)
All of the biliateral agreements to Europe other than those TWO were to be flown by Group subsidiary (effectively granted national carrier designation: Jetstar!)

It didn't work, Boston Bruce left and Joyce rushed off to Dubai, desperate to plug a massive hole in the numbers...of his own making...The EK alliance provides very little if anything at the threshold of benefit. What it did do was give some domestic feed into Australia.However Qantas choose not to substantiate how much. It is likely it is negligible and less than they killed off from Europe. Desperate to kill the company IR style they did not comprehend the 'interconnectedness' of the company and therefore a hastily convened 'alliance' was signed....

The tide will again recede. Qantas under Joyce always swam naked. Joyce's 'alliance' makes neither money nor many passengers for the 'group'. His stupidity and arrogance only outdone by lack of critical analysis and laziness of many, including the regulators,parliament, the media, and indeed many staff.
In some ways isn't it moot... reason being if more 787s come and what was announced today comes to fruition and there's a direct CDG flight from Australia, that will surely be the trend and the EK Alliance will become even more irrelevant.

AerialPerspective
8th May 2017, 11:26
Things change V-Jet. Some people don't buy Australian for whatever reason. It's none of my business why they do or don't and I don't care if they decide that's their chosen path. I'm well past someone trying to throw Singapore Airlines or Virgin in my face, if they haven't considered Qantas, nothing I say or do will change their mind because they have already made up their mind.
Ditto. I have NEVER bought an Australian made car, neither has my family.
Reason??? Dad had company cars in the 70s and 80s that were high-spec Ford and Holden and they were utter garbage. We have always had Japanese cars, we've nearly always flown Qantas, we've always bought imported TVs, we've always bought Australian lawnmowers though, for example. Who people fly with and what they buy is much a matter of personal taste. I don't care if anyone chooses to fly VA over QF, I don't, I always fly QF and there are many that will do that too. The move away from QF has less to do with QF and more to do with government policy allowing anyone to fly here and giving away bilateral rights like they were confetti whereas other countries guard their rights and don't throw them away. That and the splitting of QF INTL traffic ex Australia off to JQ has reduced their percentage.

AerialPerspective
8th May 2017, 11:27
When stationed overseas in the past I've seen how people that will pay the lowest price available somehow think when things go south that Qantas and the Australian government owes them a ride home when their wonderful overseas airline has abandoned them,

Sunfish
8th May 2017, 23:07
Gentlemen, I didn't reject Qantas, Qantas rejected me.

Qantas has systematically rejected a lot of Australians like me who were once prepared to even pay a premium to fly on what was then our beloved national airline.

To give you an idea, there was nothing like the feeling of relief and relaxation after spending a month on business in Europe one felt on boarding a QF 747 at LHR and hearing a friendly Australian accent from the steward and being offered an Australian beer before takeoff! I was already home! People my age who travelled in Europe and Asia in the Seventies and Eighties will agree with me. Then of course there were those relaxed but confident announcements from the cockpit, often with a little understated humour thrown in, from what we believed were the worlds best airline pilots.

That is what Qantas had - the admiration of a nation.

Then the rot set in. The Board referred to by Whitlam as "The Australian equivalent of the house of lords" was taken over by speculators with no interest in Aviation per se and hired CEO's who had nil experience in airline operations. They compounded this by letting narcissists into management ranks.

Qantas then decided at board level that it was an international business first and foremost and that any. consideration of its Australian roots or Australian national interest in its business strategy was unwarranted (until it wants to be bailed out).

Despite the fact that direct international flight access is pivotal to economic development of every region on earth, Qantas remains Sydney-centric, which disadvantaged every other state capital until overseas competition broke down the doors. I will not fly to Sydney for the "privilege" of flying QF, neither will anyone else.

Then there are the domestic markets Qantas killed to destinations like Hamilton Island and Maroochydore. Then there is Jetstar. Then there is the insane cost cutting. Then there is the focus on business and first class as "profitable", consigning the bulk of economy passengers to a slave ship level of comfort and service.

Then there was Margaret Jackson and the takeover ploy that failed.

Then there were the high profile labour disputes where the CEO shut down the airline.

Then there were the disastrous expensive QF business class flights I took to/from LAX where the customer service was shithouse, as was the punctuality, both ways.

Then there were the contract non Australian staff.

Then there was the destruction of the Qantas world beating Australian maintenance and overhaul organisation and the offshoring of that work to lowest costs unreliable third world countries, I wonder how many poor Mexicans are going to work on QF A 380's maintenance at LAX?

Then there is the continued behaviour of Qantas management as "nobility", giving each other bottles of Penfolds Grange, who see the airlines current profitability as a result of their superior talents and not as a gift from collapsed oil prices.

Then there is the alliance which means I always have to fly via Dubai and will never get a seamless trip in a QF aircraft to Europe ever again.

My current perception is that Qantas is focussed on corporate clients, starting with the Australian Government, and that an occasional old fart retiree like me is not a 'valued customer" and will be treated accordingly, business class or not. I do not wish to pay again for a premium product and receive a shithouse travel experience, which is now what I expect from Qantas.

So now Qantas is just another airline. I didn't try Qantas for a quote because my perception is that they are a poor to embarrassing value proposition and neither did my travel agent. I'm flying Singapore / Etihad / KLM and Malaysian airlines in business class in various permutations direct to/from Melbourne over the next month or three.

Tuck Mach
8th May 2017, 23:47
That is what Qantas had - the admiration of a nation.
Sunfish,

That is the reality. As a small under confident country many staff watched a 747 lift off destination LAX and think they had a small part in it.

The EK alliance is a desperate attempt to shore up the lost international feed, a big self goal Joyce kicked. I didn't think the board could be more inept than under Jackson, but Leigh is a dinosaur, and although his ego wanted to make history, he really is just consigned to it.

Unfortunately once HR/IR and all the other cube farming 'professionals' get hold of businesses it is done..
What Qantas used to get for free from their staff was spent in one afternoon in October 2011. Accountants can't find a spot for loyalty and IR/HR laugh at it, so cut they do. Their London Cabin crew may well be very cheap but how that is supposed to deliver a value premium in First class is beyond me..Serfdom I guess?

Dissenting opinions are cut down and the airline spins the 787 as a 'game changer', when the MSNs of the first deliveries are in the 6XX..The whiz kids in marketing and the woeful lack of critical thinking make sure this is lost in fakebook likes...

I cannot find a metric that makes the EK alliance a winner, unless I change focus and look at EK benefits....

donpizmeov
9th May 2017, 00:07
A little fella in a bow tie tried his best to stop the EK invasion of Australia. EKs big cheese then stated he would fly a route at a loss if it hurt QF. Several years later look what happened.

AerialPerspective
9th May 2017, 12:43
A little fella in a bow tie tried his best to stop the EK invasion of Australia. EKs big cheese then stated he would fly a route at a loss if it hurt QF. Several years later look what happened.
That little fella in the bow-tie, turfed out a lot of good people and replaced them with cronies - such as the fat controller and another bloke who's name escapes who had to resign for giving business to his own company - didn't realize that was not allowed... and hated Qantas with a passion... there was hardly a thing he did that did not contribute to the detriment of Qantas... starting with wanting to change the name to Australian (a stupid move which left the BA people on the Board aghast and Dixon threatening to leave apparently)... there are many a Qantas old timer, while not in any way wishing ill on him or his premature death, nevertheless are disgusted that his name is even on an aircraft when the likes of Bert Ritchie, Ron Yates and others aren't - people who actually contributed something.
Strong took an airline which had made modest profits with minimal capital (only $147m from the Commonwealth in 45 years, $80m of that was only 8-10 years before the float) that was given $1.1bn capital injection from the sale proceeds, more than doubling its capital base and then claimed he had turned it around. The classic 'show pony' who liked to come in and take credit for things that weren't his own work.

Rated De
23rd Sep 2017, 20:19
It would seem that the end of Middle East transits was predicted accurately.

Ken Borough
24th Sep 2017, 09:49
That little fella in the bow-tie, turfed out a lot of good people and replaced them with cronies

How true! The number of aviation professionals shown the door to be replaced by people who had either no industry experience or came from the sheltered domestic environment was beyond belief. They knew how to spend money and have a good time for the short period they were there but avoided all of the very hard decisions such as consolidation of awards. And quite a few profitable international routes were shut down to shore up the domestic operation.

The little fella in the bow-tie was a walking and talking hoax. His actions never matched his rhetoric but he did have a lot of people sucked in, especially those with a staff number beginning with 5. And many still think he was a water-walking genius. If interested, go to Facebook and search for "TAA becoming Australian Airlines". There are many there who remain deluded enough to think that TN and JBT should have displaced QF. Such a sad bunch!

Rated De
11th Oct 2017, 19:19
Posted without comment...


Why do investors keep ploughing money into airlines when they lose so much money? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-12/why-investing-in-airlines-is-a-dumb-idea/9040916)

C441
12th Oct 2017, 01:32
From the article:

Qantas and Virgin Australia are no means the worst financial performers in the skies, but under their respective and long term bosses Alan Joyce and John Borghetti both have lost more than they have made……..

…….Few airlines consistently make profits

While Qantas has been soaring with big profits in the last three years as fuel prices have fallen, they don't come close to erasing a $2.8 billion loss in 2014.

And since Alan Joyce took over in November 2008 Qantas has made no money.

Its total after-tax results, which is what is available to shareholders, is a loss of $155 million.