So you need a new fleet Leigh?

[Rated De]

Did QF do the wing crack fix on its 380 years ago? Are these cracks the same or something new?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109150/Wing-cracks-A380-superjumbos-sparked-global-recall-blamed-British-engineering-firm.html

These cracks were originally found and rectified worldwide.
The article gives a reasonable summation of the process and mode of discovery.

It is believed that this issue is a new and separate issue, which according to a usually reputable connection is evident in several early build A380, of which Qantas have some.

That Qantas has wasted a decade whilst accolades were bestowed on Little Napoleon is disappointing. It will be interesting to watch just what transpires, as any change to the flying and retirement plan is tacit admission they have their fleet strategy badly out of phase with the industry best practice. This best practice sees airlines like Thai already operating a fleet of 12 A350, whilst Fort Fumble continues to discuss 'Project Bananarama'.
If this is proven to be the case and four A380 are on static display, then the tide has gone out and will display Little Napoleon in all his glory.

[ExtraShot]

. 'Project Bananarama'.

I may be a bit out of the loop here, but is this a serious name used by a multi billion dollar company, to label what should be a serious project? A project that will likely affect the livelihoods of hundreds, if not thousands of workers and shareholders?

[Rated De]

I may be a bit out of the loop here, but is this a serious name used by a multi billion dollar company, to label what should be a serious project? A project that will likely affect the livelihoods of hundreds, if not thousands of workers and shareholders?






Sorry a little creative licence.


Apparently the planning team adopted a secret code name locking themselves in the bowels of Coward Street. After endless planning sessions, substantial amounts of paid overtime, they emerged victorious. It required, so legend says, some out of the box thinking. circling the wagons more than once to deep dive into the data. Fighting push back, in a nut shell, a naming ceremony with all the trimmings, called it Project Sunrise.

The team were not aware, so legend says, that the name of the project was to be affixed to the endless search for a new aircraft.

[ExtraShot]

Ah, well that’s a relief.

Just a little gullible I suppose. Still, when this Nigerian Guy comes through with my lotto winnings I’ll be able to retire and I won’t need to worry about the future of Qantas anymore.

[hotnhigh]

Project purple on the other hand is alive and well

[GoldCoastTobacconist]

A number of cancelled Share Buy Backs , the most recent Jan 10th $61 919 210.35 (cash or otherwise).

[blow.n.gasket]

Project purple on the other hand is alive and well



The Qantas lawyers couldn’t possibly have code named planning for the lock out “Project Purple” !
Alan said he made the decision that Saturday morning !
Otherwise this suggests he may have been fibbing a wee bit !

[Rated De]

The Qantas lawyers couldn’t possibly have code named planning for the lock out “Project Purple” !
Alan said he made the decision that Saturday morning !
Otherwise this suggests he may have been fibbing a wee bit !

Precisely why Little Napoleon rushed to gag Lucinda Holdforth.

[bazza stub]

Do gag orders have an expiry? It would be a shame if this book never saw daylight.

[ampclamp]

[QUOTE][Do gag orders have an expiry? It would be a shame if this book never saw daylight./QUOTE]

The parties reached a settlement so it will not be published.

[Rated De]

The parties reached a settlement so it will not be published.

Yes apparently it was quite an 'agreement' too

[Chocks Away]

The Townsville Refueller tells me that's just like the continued silencing of the ABC's 4 Corners program, with their investigation on the "insider" set up of National Jet Sys red-tail regional ops and it's owner then!

"...will not be published." ...no but there's always a stray PDF hanging around somewhere isn't there? Anyone checked WikiLeaks or called Julian?

[PlasticFantastic]

VH-OQA is off to AUH. Apparently for heavy maintenance and reconfiguration. Does that put paid to rumours that QF would be scrapping/retiring its early A380s?

[regional_flyer]

VH-OQA is off to AUH. Apparently for heavy maintenance and reconfiguration. Does that put paid to rumours that QF would be scrapping/retiring its early A380s?

The very fact that Nancy-Bird was very recently painted into the new livery makes it odd that people would think she'd be getting retired.

[Beer Baron]

Don’t forget OQA has much lower cycles than some of the other early jets (OQB, OQC) due to her convalescing in SIN for an extended period.

[Rated De]

The very fact that Nancy-Bird was very recently painted into the new livery makes it odd that people would think she'd be getting retired.

It might be odd, it may not, there is no way to ultimately ascertain whether that particular aircraft is indeed part of the batch, although it is an early build.
Aircraft have been painted and refurbished, only to have been retired, refurbished again or otherwise returned to lessor.

Qantas do need a new fleet.

[Going Boeing]

I’ve heard that Qantas engineers have gone with OQA to do a very detailed inspection of the wing cracks when the access panels have neen removed. What they find will have a significant bearing on whether the repairs are done, or the early aircraft are grounded.

[donpizmeov]

After speaking to some of the framies (ex RAAF and QF) from AUH that are about to do a deep level maintenance job and refurbishment on a QF 380, they are unaware of any wing problem . They did drink lots of beer at the rugby after watching their kids be beaten by the Exiles .(you need to be there). Interested in what transpires.

[V-Jet]

The conspiracy theorist in me would quote Mandy Rice Davies 'Well, he would (say that) wouldn't he?', but I specifically raised that wing issue with a very senior manager a few days ago. The denial started with a laugh, then exasperation in the voice saying 'NO - and you are the 3rd person TODAY to ask me that!'. The discussion then moved on to how to stop rumours as you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. The fear was that as soon as something as serious as that type of issue is mentioned in a print denial, it may lead to it gaining even more traction, and further afield.

I'm convinced that the manager in question was being honest by saying NOT TRUE, and was genuinely exasperated at the extent of the rumour and more concerned at how to shut it down without creating a PR nightmare. Of course, whether said manager was being lied to themselves is a question I cannot answer....

[hotnhigh]

Well let’s move away from the problem A380 fleet shall we, .........and talk about a fleet with no issues........the 330.
����
bloody expensive this aeroplane business. luckily for Alan they all need less maintenance.

[Rated De]

The conspiracy theorist in me would quote Mandy Rice Davies 'Well, he would (say that) wouldn't he?', but I specifically raised that wing issue with a very senior manager a few days ago. The denial started with a laugh, then exasperation in the voice saying 'NO - and you are the 3rd person TODAY to ask me that!'. The discussion then moved on to how to stop rumours as you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. The fear was that as soon as something as serious as that type of issue is mentioned in a print denial, it may lead to it gaining even more traction, and further afield.

I'm convinced that the manager in question was being honest by saying NOT TRUE, and was genuinely exasperated at the extent of the rumour and more concerned at how to shut it down without creating a PR nightmare. Of course, whether said manager was being lied to themselves is a question I cannot answer....

It isn't known whether the issue affects the early build A380 operated by Qantas, but the connection did suggest the issue did affect some aircraft.
With the litany of lies told to staff, shareholders and the government alike, Little Napoleon has added modern polish to 'the boy who cried wolf'.
After all, Qantas International was 'terminal'. Little Napoleon made the decision all by himself on a Saturday to ground the airline He required AUD$3 billion of taxpayer largess, recorded a huge paper loss as the Book value of long inflated International fleet was finally written down, convincing the staff a 'pay freeze' was necessary, only to miraculously 'transform' the business the very next financial year. A fortunate coincidence was the millions of options vesting at 'amazingly' the same time.

That the said manager, presumed to be within the flying operation, might not be told the truth is a fair assumption to make.
Either way,

Qantas need a new fleet.

[Bad Adventures]

2 more 747’s, OJS and OEB heading to the desert in Mar/Apr.

[Qantas 787]

Well the 747s are coming to the rescue this week with ZNG out (I heard it was hit by a VA catering truck - not sure if it true). So running the 8 aircraft with no pad in the schedule will come back to cost you when you don't have a spare.

The 747 will operate the MELHKg run on Saturday and also doing MELSFO in the coming days. The 330s are also having significant issues.

The 747 wont be around to save the day forever......

[dragon man]

It’s OJS on Feb 17 and OEB April 4.

[Rated De]

But sales of such four-engined planes are tumbling as many airlines switch to smaller and less thirsty twin-engined jets like the A350 and Boeing 777 due to improving size and range.

Presumably Little Napoleon can read, even his old buddy Sir Tim is having another look at the A380 orders.
Presumably a Book Value of these aircraft is close to zero once EK pulls the rug from under the factory..

https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN1PP2C7-OCABS

[hotnhigh]

Nothing like growing the business.
hello accc.
impulse mk 2
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-acquires-19-9-per-cent-stake-in-alliance-airlines/

[goodonyamate]

Now he can play the contractors off against the contractors against the contractors!

[Rated De]

Now he can play the contractors off against the contractors against the contractors!

Beats the day to to grind of actually strategically directing, fleeting and running an airline.
Little Napoleon is looking for distraction as the axiomatic problems continue to surface.

With a huge JQ order and no where to place the existing air frames (think Network), buy another competitor with a fleet age of 26 years and farm out more aircraft.

Qantas need a new fleet.
They are desperate for leadership

[dragon man]

Latest this morning is two 787s are off line and the 747 is to go back on HongKong again. This now leads to a crewing problem I’m told ������. Also international is struggling again (look at ANZ) and a decision has been made that no more new aircraft will be ordered at the moment.

[V-Jet]

and a decision has been made that no more new aircraft will be ordered at the moment.

So no news there, then. Come to think of it, can anyone recall Joyce saying anything different over the last 11 years? He must be getting his delivery and diction of that line absolutely spot on by now!

[GA Driver]

Well by the latest reports, they have bought new (old) aircraft and plenty of them! Jetstar, then network and now alliance. Just a pity he isn’t concentrating on where they’re probably needed most right now.

[Rated De]

So no news there, then. Come to think of it, can anyone recall Joyce saying anything different over the last 11 years? He must be getting his delivery and diction of that line absolutely spot on by now!

How will they coach him to say Fokker?

That they spend their time acquiring charter/regional airlines ought show precisely where their focus is: It is internal. Their entire focus is lowering labour unit cost.
Their prism is IR.
That it seems ever obvious to the rest of the industry, analysts and staff that their fleet metrics are horrible they persist with a form of competitive behaviour usually observed in a market with monopolistic or oligopolistic competition.
Right now the sharp minded (like a bowling ball), cutting edge regulators at ACCC and ASIC are busily hopping into the latest airline hospitality. Be it free upgrades, Chairman's lounges or even paper bags, soft corruption will see zero questions asked about this integration.

[knobbycobby]

Can’t shrink much more.
The 787 is a replacing the 747 Hull for hull exactly as per ASX statement.
Project Sunrise is a pure replacement type for the A380 and will need less crew bypassing SIN to LHR and LAX to JFK.
Qantas reduced capacity from 4 daily flights to London and 1 to FRA or 5 down to 2 in total(1 787 from PER) and a lonely 1 A380 to LHR via SIN.
I listened to an interview with Joyce where he said the current size of international was as small as it could be as it was required to feed Jetstar Domestic, International and Japan as well as Frequent flyer.

[Capt Fathom]

Project Sunrise is a pure replacement type for the A380 and will need less crew bypassing SIN to LHR and LAX to JFK

And in what year is that going to start? :zzz:

They'll probably need more crew as they all succumb to exhaustion!

[V-Jet]

a form of competitive behaviour usually observed in a market with monopolistic or oligopolistic competition.

Many have said Joyce is a bully. Even after benefitting from 11 years (some would say 20) of Napoleonic style managerial brilliance, s/he is STILL able to 'bully' a regional. If you can't be the big man in Europe, Asia, ME, or even Sydney - then you certainly can be in regional Australia. For now at least.

[knobbycobby]

And in what year is that going to start? :zzz:

They'll probably need more crew as they all succumb to exhaustion!


Indeed. Seen a dummy pattern to !ondon. 23 hour Tour of Duty departing at 8pm. Night the entire way. Crews will then Land Eleven hours out of time zone in one hit. No stopovers either way to rest.
Even if you can sleep in you’ll have been up all day prior just to make it more dangerous and extreme.
Noticeably different from an early AM departure like Los Angeles, Santiago, JoBerg, Asia etc etc.

If you woke up at 8am which would be conservative it will be 45 hours since a crew member had a proper sleep in a normal bed free from noise, turbulence and galley noise.

From the Paper.

In its most detailed comments on ultra-long-range flying, Qantas said the aircraft makers Boeing and Airbus had made “really good progress” on an ambitious set of flights dubbed “Project Sunrise”, ready for take-off in 2022.
Similarly, he said the ultra-long-range model “could be a good aircraft, if the product and the price is right”, to replace the double-decker Airbus A380s

[V-Jet]

​​​​​​ Even if you can sleep in you’ll have been up all day prior ​

You’re assuming you have enough time off ‘back home’ to have been awake through a local day/night sleep. Maybe work with the company a little and get to the point (as I was for pretty much 20 years of my life - without the benefit of PER-LHR sectors) where I didn’t have a ‘home’ port. If you work hard enough, you won’t be awake all day before you blast off to LHR or PER. Alan could turn out to be OK. Through a delirious fog of tiredness, naturally...

And for the Angels out there thinking these comments are rubbish - just try living an aircrew pattern for even a paltry 12 months and see what it’s like. You have absolutely NO idea and if you did, you would not get on an overnight sector ever again unless you knew the entire crew had at least ten days off before you got onboard. Unlike you, I DO know what I’m talking about.

[Rated De]

You’re assuming you have enough time off ‘back home’ to have been awake through a local day/night sleep. Maybe work with the company a little and get to the point (as I was for pretty much 20 years of my life - without the benefit of PER-LHR sectors) where I didn’t have a ‘home’ port. If you work hard enough, you won’t be awake all day before you blast off to LHR or PER. Alan could turn out to be OK. Through a delirious fog of tiredness, naturally...

And for the Angels out there thinking these comments are rubbish - just try living an aircrew pattern for even a paltry 12 months and see what it’s like. You have absolutely NO idea and if you did, you would not get on an overnight sector ever again unless you knew the entire crew had at least ten days off before you got onboard. Unlike you, I DO know what I’m talking about.






The reality for those involved in any sort of work disturbing the normal waking-sleeping cycle is that not only is quality of life reduced, quantity of life tends to reduce substantially.
That Qantas need a new fleet is axiomatic, that the regulatory limits for the long overdue aircraft do not permit its planned tour of duty requirements, ought concern both pilots and cabin crew for that there is zero reputable science supporting its adoption.
If labour organisations and regulatory bodies alike were actually concerned about health effects any consideration would include a long term health study.
The 'studies' Qantas are undertaking are neither sufficient in scope, scale nor time to even be considered anything but marketing.

I found myself sitting up and reading about the effects of insufficient sleep. It has been making me stupider, fatter, unhappier, poorer, sicker, worse at sex, as well as more likely to get cancer, Alzheimer's and to die in a car crash. At the same time, my lack of sleep has been slowly but inexorably shrinking a) my chances of living into my mid 60s, b) my testicles.

That the industry permits any change to the current hard limits without science is troubling, that the regulator fails to demand it a concern and that people do not appreciate the long term damage it is doing to them a huge concern.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/21/why-we-sleep-by-matthew-walker-review

[Street garbage]

Qantas needs a new fleet.
Qantas needs new frontline staff for day to day ops, especially gate staff.
They need more tug drivers (especially in Melbourne).
We need new management.
Above all, we need leadership.

[Street garbage]

You’re assuming you have enough time off ‘back home’ to have been awake through a local day/night sleep. Maybe work with the company a little and get to the point (as I was for pretty much 20 years of my life - without the benefit of PER-LHR sectors) where I didn’t have a ‘home’ port. If you work hard enough, you won’t be awake all day before you blast off to LHR or PER. Alan could turn out to be OK. Through a delirious fog of tiredness, naturally...

And for the Angels out there thinking these comments are rubbish - just try living an aircrew pattern for even a paltry 12 months and see what it’s like. You have absolutely NO idea and if you did, you would not get on an overnight sector ever again unless you knew the entire crew had at least ten days off before you got onboard. Unlike you, I DO know what I’m talking about.
Totally agree with you V Jet. I have been back in domestic now for just over 12 months, the improvement in my health in exponential. The effects of multi-zone time changes is cumulative, no research or study will ever replicate the effect it has.

[Rated De]

Qantas needs a new fleet.
Qantas needs new frontline staff for day to day ops, especially gate staff.
They need more tug drivers (especially in Melbourne).
We need new management.
Above all, we need leadership.

Eloquently summarised, the disconnect between how a modern airline integrates many varied and dynamic functions has been studied and bench marked.
That the self anointed greatest management team lack the strategic imperative to evaluate, select and order a fleet is suggestive of very real problems.
Little Napoleon had no issue quickly committing shareholder funds, totalling $9.5 billion into a JQ fleet replacement when the airline is only capable of a fraction of the revenue, and boasts a fleet age half of the parent.

That the board is infected with lawyers and aircraft leasing people, with the sidekick T-shirt wearing Todd, is probably reason enough for the rudderless ship to continue drifting.
At least though a decision appears to have been made on fleet...
It is just that Qantas aren't getting some.

https://www.dw.com/en/qantas-cancels-order-for-8-airbus-a380s/a-47401917

[dragon man]

The reality for those involved in any sort of work disturbing the normal waking-sleeping cycle is that not only is quality of life reduced, quantity of life tends to reduce substantially.
That Qantas need a new fleet is axiomatic, that the regulatory limits for the long overdue aircraft do not permit its planned tour of duty requirements, ought concern both pilots and cabin crew for that there is zero reputable science supporting its adoption.
If labour organisations and regulatory bodies alike were actually concerned about health effects any consideration would include a long term health study.
The 'studies' Qantas are undertaking are neither sufficient in scope, scale nor time to even be considered anything but marketing.



That the industry permits any change to the current hard limits without science is troubling, that the regulator fails to demand it a concern and that people do not appreciate the long term damage it is doing to them a huge concern.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/21/why-we-sleep-by-matthew-walker-review


https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2185589/lack-sleep-could-damage-dna-and-affect-gene-repair

[Global Aviator]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/qantas-argues-cathay-codeshare-will-foster-competiti-455655/

Plenty more seats...

[Maxmotor]

Qantas needs a new fleet.
Qantas needs new frontline staff for day to day ops, especially gate staff.
They need more tug drivers (especially in Melbourne).
We need new management.
Above all, we need leadership.

They need new tugs also as half of the current inventory came from Essendon when ops transferred to Tullamarine.

[CSTGuy]

And now the 747’s are being utilised to rescue J* flying. There’s no way the 747’s are going away anytime soon.
http://theqantassource.com/

[dragon man]

And now the 747’s are being utilised to rescue J* flying. There’s no way the 747’s are going away anytime soon.
The QANTAS Source ? QANTAS News and Information (http://theqantassource.com/)

Id like to agree with you, however OJS leaves today and OEB April 4. Would they cut off their nose to spite their face? Yes, absolutely.

[Rated De]

'Higher oil prices were a significant headwind and we moved quickly to recover as much of the cost as we could. That's easier to achieve in the domestic market than on longer international routes where fuel is a much bigger factor, and that's reflected in the segment results we're reporting today.

Little Napoleon, dollars short and years late. Four engine aircraft traipsing around the globe will axiomatically burn a huge amount more fuel than twin engine aircraft.
That in turn blows out operating cost as fuel included CASK rises above your competitors at an alarming rate.

Qantas desperately need leadership.

[Don Diego]

The parlous state that long haul presently finds itself in has not occurred by accident, it is the plan and it is going smashingly. Long haul died years ago, they are just waiting for the most opportune time to announce it.

[Rated De]

The parlous state that long haul presently finds itself in has not occurred by accident, it is the plan and it is going smashingly. Long haul died years ago, they are just waiting for the most opportune time to announce it.

It is precisely why, the 'terminal decline' narrative was established in 2011.
That they 'transformed' the business means it would be the foolhardy to attempt it again.

Little Napoleon in December 2013 claimed he needed 'AUD$3 billion" of taxpayer assistance, only recanting six weeks later.
That the government of the day required diligence beyond which Little Napoleon wanted was the reason for the rather abrupt reversal.
Although foolhardy, with a new circus in town, given the low wattage dullards sitting in Parliament (on both sides) perhaps a Chairman's lounge membership and 'forever' upgrades will carry the day.
After all nobody asked any questions of the grounding, nor the amazing 'transformation' with 'amazingly' well timed option vesting.
The little 'investment' in Helloworld Travel seems also to be paying dividends as the Finance Minister forgets to pay his own bills...
The CEO just also happens to be a Liberal party treasurer. Soft corruption a good investment in modern Straya.

[Rated De]

Fuel costs rose $416 million in the December half, driving the carrier's key measure of underlying profit before tax to its biggest decline in four-and-a-half years, its results published this week show. The pain was particularly concentrated on longer overseas routes, which accounted for just over half of the increased kerosene spending.

Pretty obvious by now.

Little Napoleon's legacy is complete. He has 'transformed' airline CEO remuneration.

That Mr Goyder sits there, fiddling as his predecessor was fond of, the fleet gets older, the competitors move further away, having lowered their fuel included CASK a decade ago and the long suffering staff prepare for yet another industrial campaign (distraction)

Kind of ironic that the decline in earnings a result of the 'higher fuel cost' was observed before the self enriching 'transformation' program in FY15.
The 'transformation' year profit was $597 million of reduced fuel cost, a depreciation change and not much else....
Now the increased fuel cost is responsible for the decline in profit.

Is Qantas 'de transforming' ?

A village is calling.
Qantas need leadership.

[PlasticFantastic]

Rated, you do realise that:

fuel prices changes affect Qantas's competitors just as much as Qantas
Qantas and its competitors try to adjust ticket prices and flying patterns to absorb fuel price rises, and to capture additional price sensitive traffic as prices fall, and
as such, fuel price changes only affect profitability to the extent that Qantas and other airlines are unable to respond to them fully?

I ask, because Qantas International has been more profitable than its competitors (SQ, CX, EK etc) over the past few years, and continues to be the case today. And, Qantas is predicting that it will recover the higher fuel costsby the end of the year. All for that is despite the fact that (as you point out) Qantas has more, older, four-engined planes, that burn more fuel.

From where I sit, that's actually pretty good evidence that Qantas is doing a far better job at managing non-fuel costs and revenue than most of its competitors.

[Troo believer]

Rated, you do realise that:

fuel prices changes affect Qantas's competitors just as much as Qantas
Qantas and its competitors try to adjust ticket prices and flying patterns to absorb fuel price rises, and to capture additional price sensitive traffic as prices fall, and
as such, fuel price changes only affect profitability to the extent that Qantas and other airlines are unable to respond to them fully?

I ask, because Qantas International has been more profitable than its competitors (SQ, CX, EK etc) over the past few years, and continues to be the case today. And, Qantas is predicting that it will recover the higher fuel costsby the end of the year. All for that is despite the fact that (as you point out) Qantas has more, older, four-engined planes, that burn more fuel.

From where I sit, that's actually pretty good evidence that Qantas is doing a far better job at managing non-fuel costs and revenue than most of its competitors.

You can’t be serious. 3 787s will burn the same amount of fuel as 1 380.

[PlasticFantastic]

You can’t be serious. 3 787s will burn the same amount of fuel as 1 380.

I agree that Qantas's 747s and A380s burn more fuel. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

What do you disagree with? That profitability depends on managing revenue and non-fuel costs, as well as fuel costs? That Qantas International has a tonne of competitors? That those competitors also have to buy fuel at roughly the same price as Qantas? That those competitors (generally) have more fuel efficient fleets? That Qantas International has been more profitable than almost all of those competitors for the past few years, and still is? Or so you think that that profitability comes from some magical source that isn't Qantas burning less fuel (because it definitely isn't that, flying 747s), managing its non-fuel costs better, or managing its revenue better?

I'm all for having a good debate, but could you please tell me what you disagree with?

[Scooter Rassmussin]

you forget to mention most competitors have slave labour and basically can crew an entire A380 for the cost of one QF A380 captain !
ground staff mostly earning around $100 per week.
cabin crew weight limits or if the cabin crew average 30kilod less each times 20 then that’s 600kg of extra payload .
​​​​​​​good luck competing with that !

[Rated De]

You can’t be serious. 3 787s will burn the same amount of fuel as 1 380.

Precisely Troo.

The source of Qantas International's 'profitability' was:

Drop in fuel price leading to FUEL cost saving of $597 million.
A curiously well timed impairment of the International fleet (CGU) resulting in a reduction of $326 million non-cash charge in deprecaition

That the fuel fuel price declined and has stayed, despite some contango lower with the accumulated depreciation reduction is the base case for profitability. When combined with the fact that the FY14 'loss' allowed carried forward tax credits for the next few years ceteris paribus, the source of the profitability is largely financial and a bit of luck.
With the tax offsets gone and higher fuel price, Qantas is again exposed as their fleet metrics lag the industry such that when fuel price rises their fuel included CASK increase disproportionately to their peers.

Overlooking the statement that Little Napoleon sprouted out about fuel cost recovery by the end of the year, you neglected to mention two caveats:

International demand remaining as it is (ie no worsening of the international economy
No other pertinent change.

It is possible that this is the case, it is equally possible that declining demand and yield falls impact revenue.
Perhaps the reason the competitors are actually withdrawing capacity is because they assess that yields will fall and the world economy worsens.
Thus with a narrower operating margin than their competitors due their horrible fleet metrics, the gap closes (revenue declining quickly and costs largely static and higher than their competitors) far quicker than it does for their competitors due their fuel inefficient lagging the industry fleet mix.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-17/qantas-fuel-efficiency-worst-for-trans-pacific-flights-study/9333616

[PlasticFantastic]

you forget to mention most competitors have slave labour and basically can crew an entire A380 for the cost of one QF A380 captain !
ground staff mostly earning around $100 per week.
cabin crew weight limits or if the cabin crew average 30kilod less each times 20 then that’s 600kg of extra payload .
good luck competing with that !
I actually wanted to steer clear of the IR side of things, because it's such a hot topic! But, despite any payroll disadvantage, and a definite fuel burn disadvantage, Qantas International is doing better than most of its competitors and has expanded it's market share ex-Australia over the past few years.

That isn't because Qantas has had a windfall from lower fuel costs. If that was the case, all of its competitors would be rolling in money.

It's because it has managed its revenue other non-fuel costs better, which has allowed it to retain more of the fuel cost benefits than its competitors, and to offset more of the impact of the recent fuel cost increases.

[V-Jet]

.It's because it has managed its revenue other non-fuel costs better, which has allowed it to retain more of the fuel cost benefits than its competitors, and to offset more of the impact of the recent fuel cost increases.

It's put its revenue into share buybacks and Jetstar. Qantas has managed its costs appallingly badly. Even if what you suggest actually is the case (and anyone with any idea of what is going on inside QF knows that to be patent rubbish) just imagine how well Qf SHOULD have been doing if money was not thrown away on Jetstar and share buybacks but instead spent on a fleet of 777's. Fuel is the biggest expense and fuel is the one thing that has the QF fleet absolutely hamstrung.

You cannot compare a 380 burning 13,000kgs of fuel per hour and carrying 480 odd pax with a 777 burning 4,500kgs per hour carrying 400 pax. Those extra 80 pax are consuming 8,500kgs per HOUR every hour the jets are in the air. To put that another way, every flight QF takes to LAX they are selling an extra 80 odd seats but burning 120,000kgs of jet fuel extra to just about all their major competitors. London it's 240,000kgs. One way.

Unless Qantas has the capital to fix this self induced problem, it is in serious trouble. Joyce might take solace in the fact he can make money domestically with a quasi monopoly and blame International for giving him a big fuel bill, but HE has created and exacerbated that problem by throwing money away on rubbish self enrichment programmes and not ordering a single jet. There is absolutely no getting around it.

Also - almost unique to Qantas is the enormous housing price growth in the major capital cities. That has now stopped, but for the last ten years anyone has been able to borrow on the value of their home and spend on travel. It is not an insignificant factor.

[donpizmeov]

​​You cannot compare a 380 burning 13,000kgs of fuel per hour and carrying 480 odd pax with a 777 burning 4,500kgs per hour carrying 400 pax. Those extra 80 pax are consuming 8,500kgs per HOUR every hour the jets are in the air. To put that another way, every flight QF takes to LAX they are selling an extra 80 odd seats but burning 120,000kgs of jet fuel extra to just about all their major competitors. London it's 240,000kgs. One way.

Close. The 777 Burns 8600kg per hour on long haul and carries 350 in a 3 class config.

[V-Jet]

Config changes - I picked a mid config B777 which was two class. As per burn, I am not a 777 guru, but have asked guys what their burn has been in cruise and 'generally' the answer is 4,000-5,000kgs/hr. I can't recall any higher. Of course that's in cruise, a 744 burns 40,000kg/hr on the takeoff roll:)
I can quote this which was posted here a few years ago as a specific flight in 2010, an EK 777-200LR carried 98t of trip fuel (Flight Time: 13h55m). I didn't make a note of the load (if it was even available), but that indeed shows a higher figure of c7,000kgs/hr.

So to make the adjustment that's 'around' an extra 85,000kgs one way to LAX (170,000kgs one way to LHR) for 'around' 100pax extra. Better hope they fill those 100-odd seats or it gets VERY expensive:)

[Thumb War]

A heavy A330 will burn over 5t per hour so your 777 figures are on the low side...

[PlasticFantastic]

It's put its revenue into share buybacks and Jetstar. Qantas has managed its costs appallingly badly. Even if what you suggest actually is the case (and anyone with any idea of what is going on inside QF knows that to be patent rubbish) just imagine how well Qf SHOULD have been doing if money was not thrown away on Jetstar and share buybacks but instead spent on a fleet of 777's. Fuel is the biggest expense and fuel is the one thing that has the QF fleet absolutely hamstrung.

You cannot compare a 380 burning 13,000kgs of fuel per hour and carrying 480 odd pax with a 777 burning 4,500kgs per hour carrying 400 pax. Those extra 80 pax are consuming 8,500kgs per HOUR every hour the jets are in the air. To put that another way, every flight QF takes to LAX they are selling an extra 80 odd seats but burning 120,000kgs of jet fuel extra to just about all their major competitors. London it's 240,000kgs. One way.

Unless Qantas has the capital to fix this self induced problem, it is in serious trouble. Joyce might take solace in the fact he can make money domestically with a quasi monopoly and blame International for giving him a big fuel bill, but HE has created and exacerbated that problem by throwing money away on rubbish self enrichment programmes and not ordering a single jet. There is absolutely no getting around it.

Also - almost unique to Qantas is the enormous housing price growth in the major capital cities. That has now stopped, but for the last ten years anyone has been able to borrow on the value of their home and spend on travel. It is not an insignificant factor.

V-Jet, if you're trying to argue that QF should have bought the 77W instead of the A380 back in 2000, then sure, I agree with you. But that's ancient history. You seem to be arguing that QF should have bought factory-new 777s in the last couple of years. That would be a bad decision. The 787, A350 and 777X have (or will have) vastly superior economics to 77Ws. QF would be locking in poor operating economics for the next 15-20 years. That's probably why most of QF's competitors have ordered new-generation planes to replace their 77Ws as they retire. Qantas itself is replacing its 747s with 787s. It's also progressively moving the A380s from long-haul to regional flying, where it is far more cost-competitive. It's also planning to order A350 or 777Xs this year.

You're trying to compare QF's 480-seat, premium A380 configuration with a high-density, 400-seat 77W configuration, and as donpizmeov has pointed out, your fuel burn numbers for the 77W are off by a country mile. I've also seen lower burn numbers for A380s. Once you add in lower crew costs and yield premium, the A380 can equal or better the 77W. (Leeham has a decent analysis, if you want to see some numbers: https://leehamnews.com/2018/12/06/is-the-a380-900-less-economical-than-a-777-300er/). The risk with the A380 has always been whether you can fill it, not its CASM numbers, and QF does a reasonably good job of filling its A380s.

Yes, QF is more exposed to the Australian economy than international airlines. But, QF targets premium customers and corporates, who tend to be less affected by issues like the housing market (short of a major recession). Also, it is the international airlines who tend to add and subtract capacity into Australia based on our market conditions, so there is something of an automatic stabiliser in the market.

[dragon man]

It doesn’t matter if you fill it or not it all boils down to yield. Just ask Freddie Laker, 100% load factors and he went broke.

[Rated De]

Data tells the story.
Their fuel included CASK is out of the park bigger, the problem for them is simply lack of fleet planning.
At some point they will need to fund it. At that point the tide is out and the market will see who was swimming naked.

With respect to the relative staff costs, if that argument had statistical credibility then the salary of say Philippines Airlines flight crew, office staff, cabin crew and engineers would see operating margins for PAL at many multiples those of their more 'expensive' competitors. That it not the case.

Qantas International is doing better than most of its competitors and has expanded it's market share ex-Australia over the past few years.
That isn't because Qantas has had a windfall from lower fuel costs. If that was the case, all of its competitors would be rolling in money.

Qantas International showed a net route reduction and static ASK from the 'terminal decline' year on.
With respect to the 'fuel windfall' it is their fleet metrics that mean they suffer more from rising prices and benefit more from falling prices.

Factually, from 2009 to 2015 the amazing year of 'transformation' the competitors were in fact, rolling in money.

SIA Aggregate Net Profit after Tax AUD$ 3.4 billion
CX Aggregate Net Profit after Tax AUD $4.5 billion
ANZ Aggregate Net Profit after Tax AUD$ 900m


In the corresponding period Qantas by stark comparison had net losses of AUD$ 2.0 billion
That Qantas now have increased their ASK incrementally does not translate to increased market share, they have in actual fact surrendered market share ex-Australia as the JQ rollout continued. In so doing they hoped the consumer would brand substitute away from QF. The customers did, except they didn't substitute JQ for QF, they went elsewhere. The brand damage done by their 'strategy' is estimate by external research to total around AUD$1 billion. Having read the analysis it is really difficult to quantify, however in real terms the revenue of the group has declined. Brand damage and yield dilution is part of the result.
Swapping out an A380 for a B789 may improve yield but with far fewer seats their revenues decline markedly.
This is why another 'austerity drive' is on the cards.
Little Napoleon has much higher operating costs. Instead of correctly attacking fuel expense per ASK they hacked into staff.
Penny wise maybe, but pound moronic.

[V-Jet]

V-Jet, if you're trying to argue that QF should have bought the 77W instead of the A380 back in 2000, then sure, I agree with you. But that's ancient history.

It is. What has Napoleon done with the 19 years since? Nothing except self enrich and throw precious capital at windmills.

If Qf is so protective of the premium market, why did they move heaven and earth to throw all those precious customers away to EK.

The figures aren't out by a country mile, Napoleon is.

.Little Napoleon has much higher operating costs. Instead of correctly attacking fuel expense per ASK they hacked into staff.
Penny wise maybe, but pound moronic.

90% right. They hacked into real staff. The ones they should have hacked got off scott free to hack for themselves another day. And another one. And another one after that. But I repeat myself:(

[Beer Baron]

Factually, from 2009 to 2015 the amazing year of 'transformation' the competitors were in fact, rolling in money.
Geeze, talk about cherry-picking statistics to try and prove a point. Why not look at the most recent 3 years? Or are you trying to prove the ‘transformation’ was a great success?

As for harping on about CASK, you don’t seem to understand that a cabin that has a high ratio of premium seats (787, A380) in turn leads to lower ASK’s. This also means less seats to defer fixed costs against. But the higher premium seat mix delivers significantly higher PROFIT. That is what the business is all about.

Your commentary about stagnant ASK’s or rising CASK is largely irrelevant. Qantas is there to make as much profit as possible, not ship the largest amount of passengers. They could fill the planes with economy seats, drive up ASK’s and drive down CASK, for what? And that is already what the low cost side of the brand has done.

Chasing market share (in the domestic sphere) is what primarily led to Qantas’s huge loss you refer to. That’s not the strategy any more and it’s paying off big time.

I’m not suggesting Joyce is a good manager. The ‘line in the sand’ was his strategy and it was an utter disaster. But to be constantly trying to trash talk Qantas’ business metrics while they are pumping out bumper profit after bumper profit in stark contrast to their only local competitor, makes it look like you don’t understand the business as well as you pretend to.

[V-Jet]

Qantas is there to make as much profit as possible.

Not entirely true. The easiest way to make profit is to sell the assets. A CEO is supposed to look after the LONG TERM interests of the Company. In this, there is demonstrable failure at almost any level.

I would not put the management 'team' at QF in charge of a primary school tuck shop. If anyone else would, they need their heads read.

[donpizmeov]

Vjet if a 777 could burn 4.5t per hour, Boeing would not have made the 787 that carries less and burns around the same . EKs latest 380 (last 7 yrs) bur 12.6t per hour (ULR), have 520 seats (3 class) and carry max ZFW to a bit over 15hrs . The same companies 77W start shedding ZFW at 11hrs, and had to block seats to below 300 when flying dxb to lax . The 77x will do a lot better, but costs half a billion dollars (real dollars that is) a copy . Half of the 300 ordered have been ordered by the same company .
787s cost a fraction of this, are cheaper to operate, so accountants love em .
Rated de is correct when he says QF has a huge cost awaiting to renew the fleet .

[V-Jet]

Pretty sure I amended the tripler figure to say 7k/hr. Regardless, it’s arguing over peanuts. The real money has been thrown away on fripperies. Like self enrichment.

Qf Cabin Crew have just been given written notice the 744 will be around until 2025.

Qantas need a new fleet. As they have since 2000.

[donpizmeov]

That's right you selected the 772LR .Burns around 7.5t/hr and carries 250 pax in a three class config .in fact one of the few aircraft that under performs the 380 .

[Bad Adventures]

‘QF cabin crew have just been given written notice the 744 will be around until 2025’

Sorry, I’m QF cabin crew and I can tell you that’s absolute rubbish. I have the latest message from our Union and I can tell that all 744’s will be retired by end of calender year 2020 with OEB the next to go in April.

[V-Jet]

So the figures are even better then?? And have been since???

I think we are missing the point.... Alternatively Joyce is a genius...

Great we have a half dozen or so 787’s to take on the world with.

BA:Just at EBA 10 negotiation, poor expression.

[Rated De]

To be constantly trying to trash talk Qantas’ business metrics while they are pumping out bumper profit after bumper profit in stark contrast to their only local competitor, makes it look like you don’t understand the business as well as you pretend to.

What is the source of the bumper profit?
How about a little balanced research?
If domestic market dominance is the source of the profit, does it necessarily mean the international business 'transformed'?

What precise metrics changed to deliver the transformation of Qantas International in FY15?

Fuel
Depreciation

These two measures combined in FY15 for the turn-around profit. One was dumb luck the other management and audit timed.
Now as the company witnesses higher fuel expense again as it did, prior to 'transformation' the international business chops $416 million in higher fuel expense.
That the domestic business is market dominant domestically is one thing but the QF International segment is exposed. Wonder why.

We can agree that Qantas need to make profit, but as others have pointed out the profit ought be sustainable. Selling terminals, head office and catering businesses, deferring aircraft expenditures all increase profit, at least in the short term. Paradoxically the legislative requirement also stipulates directors act in the long term interest of the company shareholders.
There is one further point that perhaps is lost. There is profit and there is profit.

A reduction in depreciation of $326 million isn't tangible, it is a book figure. That was the 'benefit' in FY15.
That fuel prices fell in FY15, meant less Operating Cost (fuel) amounting to $597 million.

As Little Napoleon correctly stated:

"Higher oil prices were a significant headwind and we moved quickly to recover as much of the fuel cost as we could," Mr Joyce said."That's easier to achieve in the domestic market than on long international routes where fuel is a much larger factor.



Thus the QF International business is exposed to fuel volatility. Having been lucky in FY15, Little Napoleon has admitted they are still very vulnerable (orders of magnitude) to fuel expense in their international segment.
He also went on to say that he hopes that lower fuel prices will mean they will 'recover' that expense (transform) in 2H19.

Is that strategy or luck?

[cessnapete]

‘QF cabin crew have just been given written notice the 744 will be around until 2025’

Sorry, I’m QF cabin crew and I can tell you that’s absolute rubbish. I have the latest message from our Union and I can tell that all 744’s will be retired by end of calender year 2020 with OEB the next to go in April.


Better get new aircraft orders in ASAP! IAG/BA just ordered 18 and further option to 42 B777-9.

Replacing B744 and older 777-200.

[Rated De]

Better get new aircraft orders in ASAP! IAG/BA just ordered 18 and further option to 42 B777-9.

Replacing B744 and older 777-200.



Isn't that the point Pete?
Right now the industry takes yet another step further in front and Little Napoleon sits resplendent in his Order of Australia as the highest paid Airline CEO in the hemisphere doing nothing.

Maybe they will commission a super secret team, hidden in the bowels of Fort Fumble to decide on a competition to award naming rights for the aircraft yet to be ordered, financed and delivered, that a previous super secret team decided ought be called Project Sunrise.

[Troo believer]

Elaine has been spruiking to all and sundry that an announcement regarding Chicago will be forthcoming sometime in March. It could go either way. Such a dynamic management. It’s more exciting watching paint dry but then he doesn’t care whilst raking in an obscene remuneration package. I also note that Qantas is trying to market themselves as a green airline by recycling waste whilst operating inefficient 4 engine guzzlers. Not much credibility but then again that won’t change the spin anytime soon. We need a new fleet and a CEO with vision.

[Chocks Away]

Green Airline... recycling waste?
Don't make me laugh.
Air EnZed have been doing that for a decade now, showing up other operators, recycling light weight re-usable polymer utensils, plates, newspapers etc... back in 2009 they made 5 Mill profit from it for their whole network! Many other airlines have followed in various ways since the 2000's
QF - Great "step forward" but way overdue and pretty much seems you've been "shamed" into doing it.
No point commenting on the other points above as it's comprehensively covered in many of the replies.
Happy Landings :ok:

[*Lancer*]

I also note that Qantas is trying to market themselves as a green airline by recycling waste whilst operating inefficient 4 engine guzzlers. Not much credibility but then again that won’t change the spin anytime soon.


Most users of this forum fly hydrocarbon fuelled aircraft. Does that take away credibility from any of their otherwise environmentally-friendly activities?

[Rated De]

Most users of this forum fly hydrocarbon fuelled aircraft. Does that take away credibility from any of their otherwise environmentally-friendly activities?






That is true and aviation contributes around 3% of CO2 emission.
Many readers will be aware IATA industry members agreed to reduce CO2 emisison

Reduce by 1.5% annually from 2009 to 2020.
Carbon neutral from 2020.
Reduction in net total CO2 of 50% by 2050.

Pilots will have seen single engine taxi in, reduced APU and Air Conditioning. Little Napoleon has spun flight planning changes and even different flap approach and departures.
That airline management have nicely 'captured' not the carbon, but the financial benefit is disappointing, after all it is their pilots generating the savings.
There remains an inescapable fact, we can't burn hydrocarbons forever and some airlines do much better than others...

Obviously fleet choices make the biggest impact.
It is pleasing to see Qantas tackle the waste, however the targeted reductions are difficult to achieve when you consume 64% more fuel per RPK on a Pacific crossing than your competitors.

Qantas need a new fleet

[Chocks Away]

Quite a basic look at it (https://simpleflying.com/qantas-airbus-a220/)but "Nicholas" is on the right track.

[Street garbage]

Quite a basic look at it (https://simpleflying.com/qantas-airbus-a220/)but "Nicholas" is on the right track.
I disagree. One of the overwhelming needs from my perspective is more seats SYD-MEL-BNE. It is where most of the "Groups"- I hate that word- profit comes from. Even at 15 minute intervals during peak, most of the B738's on SYD-MEL-BNE are full during this period. Yes, I know business travellers like their frequency- but it is inefficient. It is why the B767 worked so well, every 1/2 hour, occasionally every 1/4 hour on Mondays and Fridays , 250 seats...etc. QF would be much better served with A321 or 797. The early VX series 738 are now 18 years old. Judging on the limited perspective of the number of MEL's, they are starting to get tired. Knowing this lot, they won't order new a/c..they'll just keep buying shares.

[CurtainTwitcher]

I disagree. One of the overwhelming needs from my perspective is more seats SYD-MEL-BNE. It is where most of the "Groups"- I hate that word- profit comes from. Even at 15 minute intervals during peak, most of the B738's on SYD-MEL-BNE are full during this period. Yes, I know business travellers like their frequency- but it is inefficient. It is why the B767 worked so well, every 1/2 hour, occasionally every 1/4 hour on Mondays and Fridays , 250 seats...etc. QF would be much better served with A321 or 797. The early VX series 738 are now 18 years old. Judging on the limited perspective of the number of MEL's, they are starting to get tired. Knowing this lot, they won't order new a/c..they'll just keep buying shares.

Sources indicate the 767 was "kicked to curb" as it could never be Maintenance On Demand (MOD) and required a LAME to certify every departure, not so for the 737. Therefore removing the 767 required less LAME's onto the future. Happy to be corrected.

[AerialPerspective]

Sick of hearing them talking about International 'struggling' International feeds a lot of domestic traffic into domestic and regional. Back in the days of more reasonable/capable management, this was taken into consideration.
The cry a few years ago that "International had not met its cost of capital since 199x something was utter crap. I have all the Annual Reports, most of which during that period lauded the fact that International continued to carry the business despite poor performance from domestic.

[AerialPerspective]

They are a green airline, green with envy at all the other airlines with 777s.

[Rated De]

One of the overwhelming needs from my perspective is more seats SYD-MEL-BNE. It is where most of the "Groups"- I hate that word- profit comes from. Even at 15 minute intervals during peak, most of the B738's on SYD-MEL-BNE are full during this period. Yes, I know business travellers like their frequency- but it is inefficient. It is why the B767 worked so well, every 1/2 hour, occasionally every 1/4 hour on Mondays and Fridays , 250 seats...etc. QF would be much better served with A321 or 797. The early VX series 738 are now 18 years old. Judging on the limited perspective of the number of MEL's, they are starting to get tired. Knowing this lot, they won't order new a/c..they'll just keep buying shares.

The original order for 788 related to a twin aisle and timely replacement for the 767.
Qantas would have had a twin aisle high capacity aircraft, product differentiation on their competitor and an aircraft that could operate rather like the 767 into those mid range sectors.

For reasons best know to the self anointed ,world's greatest airline management, they preferred to give them all to the low fare and low yield sibling.

With terminals, tarmac and airspace congested it is anything but efficient where it takes more fuel, more flight attendants, double the pilots, double the engines and double the airframes (give or take) to fly the same ASK, into an ever congested terminal environment.
Pilots will be soon coping with increased cross wind limits in Sydney (prior to a runway change) as the system rentiers seek to squeeze every drop of out the profusely sweating and overworked infrastructure.

The inefficiency of the airline is obvious to industry observers who are not members of the Chairman's lounge or otherwise on the speed dial for Olivia's upgrades.

[wheels_down]

Alan recently did quote the 787 is too capital intensive for triangle routes. Jetstar do run a lot of 321 flights MEL/SYD.

All eyes will be on Virgin and it’s MAX 10 introduction. Most certainly appears to be a gamble that will pay off. QF has probably missed the boat before Western Sydney opens for any MAX 9/10 order and VA will have about 4 years of the extra capacity before it opens.

Never understood why nobody went for the -900ER. Great workhorse USA Domestic and would be a good fit for Sydney.

[Beer Baron]

it is anything but efficient where it takes more fuel, more flight attendants
Are you sure about that? What does a 787 burn SYD-MEL? How about a 738?
What is the minimum cabin crew complement for the 787 vs the 738?

I suspect you are wrong on both counts. You could operate 2 738's and burn less fuel per passenger and require the same amount of cabin crew.

[flitegirl]

Going on a hypothetical 2 class 787 (similar to an A332) most likely 1 CSM & 8 FAs. Two 738s require 2 CSMs & 8 FAs (BNE/SYD/MEL)

[Beer Baron]

738 minimum crew complement is 4 crew. 787 is 8 crew. We operate the 738 with 4 cabin crew every day. Certain flights at certain times of day get an extra crew member for meal service requirements.

[Oriana]

Flying in the back of a 737 is a ****house experience.

[porch monkey]

Maybe it is. But due to the wonders of our capitalistic society, you have a choice..........

[Rated De]

A 738 burns approximately 21.20 kg fuel per passenger on a 90-minute sector. A 788 burns, depending on configuration between 21.45 kg per passenger and 33.0 kg per passenger on a 90-minute sector.

Given Qantas in economy have a 30-inch pitch seat, a higher density is likely, bringing the fuel per passenger close to that achieved by a Jetstar 788 of 21.45kg per passenger. Of course you are correct there will be a small fuel saving, but to achieve that small ‘saving’:

· Qantas require nearly 4 738 to uplift the same passenger count. ( Or maybe a B717 instead of the fourth B738-Interestingly the hourly cost is almost the same)
· 8 pilots not 4 are required
· 8 engines, not four are required
· Assuming that the configuration is greater than 216 passengers, the 788 or alternative twin aisle will require 8 flight attendants (16 in total) as detailed in CAO 20.16.3, Qantas can, fly with 4 flight attendants on the 738, although often times they carry an additional flight attendant. Thus they require 16 flight attendants spread over the four 738 aircraft.
· Four gates, dispatch staff and engineering support are required, in both Sydney and Melbourne.
· Four aircraft are now squeezed into the airspace that two could occupy. Of course the same congestion applies to the check in, baggage and tarmac space.
· There are four invoices totaling somewhere in the vicinity of $2,700 per hour, not two.

Currently the Qantas A330 domestic configuration can deliver 297 passengers at around 26.5 kg of fuel per passenger. Again the airspace is less congested, less pilots are needed and if less than 100% load factor is achieved on the 738 Qantas still need to squeeze four of them in the airspace and on the gates.The yield and revenue mix is difficult to quantify outside fort fumble, but our guess would be that the premium seat would yield significantly more in Qantas livery than Jetstar

Depends on their focus. If management talk about fuel (isn't it a DFO KPI?) and exclude all other practical considerations, then sure thing, shut down an engine when sitting at a holding point as the three aircraft in front wait to cross the same intersection. Naturally departures may also be sequenced off the active runway, so you may be a while. Of course having crossed the intersection, kindly wait for the occupied gate to become unencumbered so that your aircraft can enter the same apron, fourth in line.

Qantas need a new fleet.

[Beer Baron]

As usual, things are more complicated than your analysis.

2 pilots vs 4?
Well, a 737 crew do a SYD-MEL-SYD pattern they are paid 3 hours. 787 crew do it and they get 5:30 and the 787 hourly rate is higher. So from a pilot cost perspective is it cheaper running 2 737’s?
Obviously the 787 looks better if they do another return service but you’ll be outside the peak time by then so do you need to fly a widebody load then?

If less than 100% load factor is achieved on the 738...
Well that is surely a situation where 2 737’s are a significant advantage. Look at how Qantas dynamically manage capacity during the peak hours each day. On days with a light load they cancel the half-past the hour flight and roll pax onto the on the hour flight. Huge cost saving for the company.

You can’t do that with a half empty 787 as you’d end up with an hour long hole in the schedule and business passengers won’t stand for it.

Gate congestion?
How many gates in SYD, MEL and BNE can 787’s park on? A quarter, a third, of the available gates?? If you widen the gates you end up with fewer anyway.

And what of the cost of the aircraft? The 789 costs almost triple the price of a 738 yet holds less than double the passengers.

The 789 is a brilliant aircraft and I hope they order many more but to say that they are foolish for not running them SYD-MEL ignores a lot of the real operating dynamics of that route.

[Rated De]

International has been a difficult division for Qantas, which has faced an influx of competitors adding routes to Australia and driving down airfares.Earnings grew 6 per cent last financial year, but plunged 60 per cent in the first half of this year, from $224 million to $90 million, thanks to a $219 million blow-out in its fuel bill.


If the rumoured discussion took place, resulting in Ms Webster being rapidly escorted form the premises, then telling the truth in a time of company wide deceit is indeed a revolutionary act.

Qantas need a new fleet.




https://www.smh.com.au/topic/qan-199

[patty50]

So much for OEB going on the 5th of April. Does it have a new retirement date or just ‘whenever Jetstar get their 787 back’? Passengers must be happy especially the ones getting upgrades.

[dragon man]

So much for OEB going on the 5th of April. Does it have a new retirement date or just ‘whenever Jetstar get their 787 back’? Passengers must be happy especially the ones getting upgrades.

It was and still leaving on 30th April.

[limelight]

I suspect there may be a first new aircraft order from Joyce about to happen. With Boeing looking at having cancellations for the Max there will be a lot of new aircraft at very good prices.
What's the betting that 75 Max 8s will be ordered as soon as the aircraft is OK'ed.
It would help Boeing to have long established customer support them.

[Dee Vee]

I suspect there may be a first new aircraft order from Joyce about to happen. With Boeing looking at having cancellations for the Max there will be a lot of new aircraft at very good prices.
What's the betting that 75 Max 8s will be ordered as soon as the aircraft is OK'ed.
It would help Boeing to have long established customer support them.

Why would they? Its unlikely the public will ever accept them after the crashes and Boeing's almost point blank refusal to accept responsibility, instead being shamed into doing anything by foreign regulators grounding the aircraft, and their cosy relationship with the US regulator which means nothing will change.

[dragon man]

I have been told that Qantas have knocked back any more additional flying for Jetstar, I’m guessing no aircraft probably.

[Global Aviator]

I reckon LL is on the money, well if a SH order goes in. Yes the 320/321 would be perfect but that’s a complete type replacement.

The general public WILL forget.

The slightly knowledgeable may not. However if it’s a direct flight on a Max v stops? Only flight?

Unless the Max never flies again it will sell, maybe under a new name.

Mmmmaaaaxxxxximum $ value is what will be seen!

[ExtraShot]

I reckon LL is on the money, well if a SH order goes in. Yes the 320/321 would be perfect but that’s a complete type replacement.

The general public WILL forget.

The slightly knowledgeable may not. However if it’s a direct flight on a Max v stops? Only flight?

Unless the Max never flies again it will sell, maybe under a new name.

Mmmmaaaaxxxxximum $ value is what will be seen!


Yeah, there’s a fair chance Boeing would love to get a high profile legacy customer to place some orders so as to espouse confidence in the aircraft. Both for future orders and those already flying. So a too good to refuse deal could make that a reality.

It it wouldn’t be out of the realms of possibility for this to be the case. Add in that the training, engineering and operational expertise is already there as well, so more $$$ saved.

[Dee Vee]

So a too good to refuse deal could make that a reality.

Qantas would have problems rebuilding one of them if it nosedived into planet earth...let alone killed anyone... Safety is one of their top priorities, would they jeopardize that?

[ExtraShot]

Qantas would have problems rebuilding one of them if it nosedived into planet earth...let alone killed anyone... Safety is one of their top priorities, would they jeopardize that?


So no one should buy anymore 737 max aircraft ever again?

[PlasticFantastic]

Clearly, Qantas, CASA, EASA, FAA etc would have to be satisfied that Boeing has fixed the issues with the 737MAX, and that it is safe to fly. That is kind of a threshold issue, and it is pretty clear that the various safety authorities are looking into this much more thoroughly than is normally the case - i.e. each country certifying the MAX and not following the usual practice of accepting the US certification.

I'm fairly certain that the point being made is that, once recertified, Boeing would be eager to land a blue chip order like Qantas to help restore the reputation of the plane.

[ExtraShot]

I'm fairly certain that the point being made is that, once recertified, Boeing would be eager to land a blue chip order like Qantas to help restore the reputation of the plane

Exactly. Maybe it’ll be Qantas, maybe not, but someone will get some cheap aircraft out of this, that’s for sure.

[ruprecht]

Boeing: "you can have the 737 Max"
Qantas: "that's good"
Boeing: "the 737 Max is cursed"
Qantas: "that's bad"
Boeing: "the 737 Max has MCAS"
Qantas: "that's good"
Boeing: "the MCAS is also cursed"
Qantas :"that's bad..."

Does the Max come with a free frogurt, or contain potassium benzoate...? :hmm:

[Jeps]

I wouldn’t worry about QF ordering the MAX. Ay Jay doesn’t see the need for an airline to own aircraft.

[maggot]

Boeing: "you can have the 737 Max"
Qantas: "that's good"
Boeing: "the 737 Max is cursed"
Qantas: "that's bad"
Boeing: "the 737 Max has MCAS"
Qantas: "that's good"
Boeing: "the MCAS is also cursed"
Qantas :"that's bad..."

Does the Max come with a free frogurt, or contain potassium benzoate...? :hmm:

The frogurt is also cursed

[Troo believer]

The frogurt is also cursed
if the crew followed the checklist Memory items they would not have lost control. It’s not a fault with the Max, it’s pilot error in this case unfortunately. The stab trim cutout switches should not have been reengaged.

[Australopithecus]

Better call the world’s regulators and Boeing then. They'll be glad to hear that the Max has been safe all along.

[dr dre]

if the crew followed the checklist Memory items they would not have lost control. It’s not a fault with the Max, it’s pilot error in this case unfortunately. The stab trim cutout switches should not have been reengaged.

MCAS had trimmed the stab to the point that pilots could barely control the aircraft using the elevator, and the manually rotating the trim wheel was impossible. The electric trim was re-engaged as a last ditch effort to regain effective control.

[dragon man]

Time for some outside the square thinking Qantas, what about Jetairways 777-300ERs six 2016 models and a perfect temporary replacement for the 747 in Qantas. I know, your dreaming.

[Rated De]

Time for some outside the square thinking Qantas, what about Jetairways 777-300ERs six 2016 models and a perfect temporary replacement for the 747 in Qantas. I know, your dreaming.

They do need some leadership.
Unfortunately, building a fiefdom is hard work. Got to spend a huge amount of energy playing game of thrones.

With the fleet replacement a one-for-one exercise, they continue to strangle their revenue and lose capacity.
Chasing yield is admirable, but their fleet is old, it is tired. Their fuel included CASK is killing margins. Fortunately, a respite in jet fuel prices gives them breathing space. If one can judge past behaviours, don't expect any change at Fort Fumble.

[dragon man]

We are also told that the loss of capacity is only economy seats and we make no money out of them.

[Rated De]

We are also told that the loss of capacity is only economy seats and we make no money out of them.

And yet an airline like Southwest seems to do ok with just Y class!

[Going Boeing]

SYD-SFO - 6 B747-400 services to be replaced by daily B787-9 services is a reduction of 532 seats per week.

For a guy with a Master’s degree in Mathematics, Little Napoleon doesn’t seem to understand that you need seats to be able to sell tickets.

[dragon man]

SYD-SFO - 6 B747-400 services to be replaced by daily B787-9 services is a reduction of 532 seats per week.

For a guy with a Master’s degree in Mathematics, Little Napoleon doesn’t seem to understand that you need seats to be able to sell tickets.

So, basically the equivalent of a 747 5 days a week. Load factor will go to 98% , yield will increase, frequent flyers will get the Tom tits cos they can’t get either an upgrade or redeem points for any seat however KPIs will look brilliant leading to increased bonuses all round.😀😀

[C441]

6 B747-400 services to be replaced by daily B787-9 services is a reduction of 532 seats per week.
Why not?
They dropped 250 seats per day each way between Melbourne and London when they introduced the 787. That includes 14P and 22J seats that would cover a lot of the operating cost differential.

[Beer Baron]

SYD-SFO - 6 B747-400 services to be replaced by daily B787-9 services is a reduction of 532 seats per week.
How many seats a week did they add by flying MEL-SFO?

[SixDemonBag]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/200x200/7qyo_6354531839b4f6ee805a55c6cfa56170eb6149d7.gif

[Global Aviator]

Time for some outside the square thinking Qantas, what about Jetairways 777-300ERs six 2016 models and a perfect temporary replacement for the 747 in Qantas. I know, your dreaming.

Now don’t go making sense!

Also look at the advantage, I’m sure they could come with subcontinent drivers ready to go 457 style...

[Rated De]

Qantas have reduced ASK and passengers flown by a considerable amount in the last decade. A dribble of flights added.

[Rated De]

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/govt-subsidies-needed-for-biofuels-qantas/news-story/bf9deeaf7887835b1bb306231cba2040


Andrew Parker, Qantas group executive for sustainability, said the carrier had discussed the issue of establishing a local biofuel industry with federal government and opposition in the hope of swift progress after this month's federal election.

So despite your fleet metrics being horrendous, the worst across the pacific, it is the Australian taxpayer who has to cough up for an airline who uses 64% more fuel per RPK across the Pacific.
Technology myths surround bio-fuel. Present food production and cropping would need to be severely limited in order to grow sufficient fuel.

"The study suggested Qantas's fuel efficiency was poor on its Pacific flights because it used four-engine planes on those routes, such as the Boeing 747 and Airbus A380, which consume more fuel than twin-engine planes."

"It is pretty noticeable that Qantas is less efficient by a significant margin than its competing airlines," Dr Rutherford said.

How about you run along Mr Parker and tell Little Napoleon that a new fleet will lower your CO2 emissions.

You can take Andrew David with you too...

“Our cabin crews see this waste every day and they want it eliminated and increasingly our shareholders are demanding we do more to address our environmental footprint,” Mr David said.




Qantas need a new fleet.

[Rated De]

ttps://www.escape.com.au/news/little-milks-tiny-vegemites-to-be-axed-as-qantas-goes-wastefree/news-story/931e6bf6187f3330a8d5375428ef1083


“The path that Qantas is going down is really holistic. It’s not just about going plastic free, it’s about going entirely waste free. And they’re not doing it for propriety or PR purposes. As our national carrier, they recognise they have a responsibly to create change.”

Really?
So how about halving the fuel consumed and at the same time saving operating expense and reducing emissions?

Nah, a photo op and PR is much cheaper.

[Going Nowhere]

So now you just share the Vegemite jar around? ��

[Rated De]

So now you just share the Vegemite jar around? ��

World leading powerful, 'game changing' stuff

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Latest trading update for Q3 can be viewed @ https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20190509/pdf/444yx4ffy9ppdb.pdf ([url=[url=[url) .

[Rated De]

Rather lucky to have a Melbourne terminal to sell. $276 million helps!



Brisbane and Sydney long ago gone. Head office sold, No compensation for engine problems or delayed aircraft, catering sold last year.

[PlasticFantastic]

Rather lucky to have a Melbourne terminal to sell. $276 million helps!



Brisbane and Sydney long ago gone. Head office sold, No compensation for engine problems or delayed aircraft, catering sold last year.

What point are you trying to make? Qantas have announced that they will exclude the proceeds of the sale from their underlying profit figures, because it is a one-off, the same as in previous years. I don't think anyone making financial or investment decisions has ever been confused about the difference between underlying and statutory profits.

Qantas have plainly made a judgement that there is greater value in a sale and leaseback arrangement, between freeing up capital, not having to have in-house property managers, and not having to split focus between running an airline and managing a commercial real estate portfolio.

Do you think Qantas should be spending time and money making decisions about Krispy Kreme leases in T1 instead of buying a new fleet?

[dragon man]

Companies that own and hold their properties are generally financially stronger than those that don’t. Why would you lease an office for 6% yield when you can borrow the money to own it for around 3%.

[Rated De]

Do you think Qantas should be spending time and money making decisions about Krispy Kreme leases in T1 instead of buying a new fleet?

Did they buy a fleet?

[dragon man]

Did they buy a fleet?

Yes, of bonus’s!!!

[PlasticFantastic]

Companies that own and hold their properties are generally financially stronger than those that don’t. Why would you lease an office for 6% yield when you can borrow the money to own it for around 3%.
For lots of reasons. The top one would be if you can put that same money into more productive assets to get an even higher return, which shouldn't be hard.

[dragon man]

For lots of reasons. The top one would be if you can put that same money into more productive assets to get an even higher return, which shouldn't be hard.

Really, if you look at the real estate Qantas has owned and sold over the years , two I’ll mention are Qantas house in the city and QCC QCD etc the capital gain plus rent on them would far exceed what they have made flying people.

[Rated De]

Actually, investors and regulators do have issues with the use of non-statutory measures.

Problems between accounting standards aside, revenue recognition remains an issue in many jurisdictions.

https://hbr.org/2016/07/where-financial-reporting-still-falls-short

[Street garbage]

For lots of reasons. The top one would be if you can put that same money into more productive assets to get an even higher return, which shouldn't be hard.
The only thing they are putting more money into is share buybacks....and Executive Bonuses. Hardly higher return.

[CurtainTwitcher]

^^^^^^^^^^ buybacks ^^^^^^^^^^^

Everything will be sold, the operational side of the business will continued to be starved, proceeds going to buy back shares. The large institutions will sell at the top to the bagholders who chase momentum and trend as the business will have already eaten itself.

[crosscutter]

Yeah...you can only laugh at the prospect of a future capital raising when the impending capex mountain has to finally be climbed. You just feel Alan has a bulldozer in front of him to keep the path smooth but all that dirt being pushed is just being added to the mountain.

[Rated De]

^^^^^^^^^^ buybacks ^^^^^^^^^^^

Everything will be sold, the operational side of the business will continued to be starved, proceeds going to buy back shares. The large institutions will sell at the top to the bagholders who chase momentum and trend as the business will have already eaten itself.

Reputational risk remains with the sovereign.
Foreign nominee owners can walk away and the incumbent government is left with a carcass. This is precisely as was 'war gamed' by Macquarie and the APA consortium during the now failed private equity take-over.

[busdriver007]

Reputational risk remains with the sovereign.
Foreign nominee owners can walk away and the incumbent government is left with a carcass. This is precisely as was 'war gamed' by Macquarie and the APA consortium during the now failed private equity take-over.

As has been said many times before: "The Assets will go Private and the Debt will go Public". The day of reckoning is looming.

[Rated De]

As has been said many times before: "The Assets will go Private and the Debt will go Public". The day of reckoning is looming.

Exogenous shocks are not unknown in the airline industry.
The company has prior experience at manufacturing crisis.

Qantas need a new fleet.

[Bundy Bear]

Exogenous shocks are not unknown in the airline industry.
The company has prior experience at manufacturing crisis.

Qantas need a new fleet.
rated de

I think you should buy a 12’ tiny and go and listen to the cricket, there is so much more to life...

[busdriver007]

What point are you trying to make? Qantas have announced that they will exclude the proceeds of the sale from their underlying profit figures, because it is a one-off, the same as in previous years. I don't think anyone making financial or investment decisions has ever been confused about the difference between underlying and statutory profits.

Qantas have plainly made a judgement that there is greater value in a sale and leaseback arrangement, between freeing up capital, not having to have in-house property managers, and not having to split focus between running an airline and managing a commercial real estate portfolio.

Do you think Qantas should be spending time and money making decisions about Krispy Kreme leases in T1 instead of buying a new fleet?

What has changed is that Leases are now on the balance sheet as debt(ftom 30/6/19) compounding the strategy of having off balance sheet debt where leases used to sit. This amplifies debt to equity ratios.Strong companies have kept Assets on the books. Time will tell.

[V-Jet]

Do you think Qantas should be spending time and money making decisions about Krispy Kreme leases in T1 instead of buying a new fleet?

Qantas should be spending time making money out of anything they can. If it's from hard assets then so much the better. Unfortunately hard assets are (and have been) easily converted into share buybacks:(

[CurtainTwitcher]

busdriver, that is the point made by Vjet. It's not about underlying vs one-off's, its what is done with the proceeds of the sales. Conversion of asset sales ---> Share Purchase and cancellation. Over 1/4 of the shares will have been cancelled since 2015 at the completing of this round.

ASX and Media Release Sydney, 21 February 2019 QANTAS DELIVERS STRONG FIRST HALF RESULT DESPITE HIGHER FUEL BILL (https://investor.qantas.com/FormBuilder/_Resource/_module/doLLG5ufYkCyEPjF1tpgyw/file/half-year-results/2019HYMediaRelease.pdf)
REWARDING SHAREHOLDERS
In addition to the $500 million shareholder return announced August 2018, the Qantas Board has announced a further return of up to $500 million. This comprises an interim franked dividend increased to 12 cents per share to be paid on 28 March 2019 with a record date of 5 March 2019, as well as an on-market share buy-back of up to $305 million. This additional buy-back is expected to bring the total reduction of shares on issue to 28 per cent since 2015.

[Rated De]

What has changed is that Leases are now on the balance sheet as debt(ftom 30/6/19) compounding the strategy of having off balance sheet debt where leases used to sit. This amplifies debt to equity ratios.Strong companies have kept Assets on the books. Time will tell.

Yes, the correct categorisation of lease obligation has changed. Stronger companies with clear foresight were well prepared. Perhaps, simply selling off what left of assets is strategy, albeit short term.
Using surplus cash flow to fund asset purchases, like a fleet is simply beyond Fort Fumble. Short term strategy far more profitable for the insiders with lots of share options.

[masonlim]

it was executive bonuses and the option vesting dates

[dragon man]

I’m hearing AIPA and Qantas are in discussions on a deal for the A350. I hope they do a better job this time and get the crew toilet and rest issues sorted before they agree to the money side of things.

[Global Aviator]

I’m hearing AIPA and Qantas are in discussions on a deal for the A350. I hope they do a better job this time and get the crew toilet and rest issues sorted before they agree to the money side of things.

Considering the 350 currently flies the longest sector Airbus no doubt will be the leading sunrise contender...

[Rated De]

Considering the 350 currently flies the longest sector Airbus no doubt will be the leading sunrise contender...


With over 260 in service already, by the time the 'world's most important managers' decide better to call it project sunset..Or bananarama.

Worth remembering that given the fleet metrics are so poor a new type is a given, but no doubt the intent will be somehow to lever down terms and conditions for the 'business case' Worked well last time!

[dragon man]

With over 260 in service already, by the time the 'world's most important managers' decide better to call it project sunset..Or bananarama.

Worth remembering that given the fleet metrics are so poor a new type is a given, but no doubt the intent will be somehow to lever down terms and conditions for the 'business case' Worked well last time!

Don’t need to IMO they got that with the 787, so this time the same pay as the 787 and they will be happy I think.

[Rated De]

Don’t need to IMO they got that with the 787, so this time the same pay as the 787 and they will be happy I think.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.

Crew costs are actually so irrelevant considering the capital expense. However, to equate crew costs to 'a robust business case' it serves individual conformation bias to suggest that the determining factor is pilot salary.
'Ultra long haul' on a 30% cost saving to the existing A380 contract is a marvellous own goal....for the pilots.

Qantas need a new fleet...

[blow.n.gasket]

Passed to me by a close confidant :
When you have a recently retired AIPA executive that has sprouted numerous times
“ We are a third tier of Qantas management “
you then know just how wasted your union dues are !

[Rated De]

Passed to me by a close confidant :
When you have a recently retired AIPA executive that has sprouted numerous times
“ We are a third tier of Qantas management “
you then know just how wasted your union dues are !

Precisely.

Qantas need a new fleet.

[Capt Colonial]

I’m hearing AIPA and Qantas are in discussions on a deal for the A350. I hope they do a better job this time and get the crew toilet and rest issues sorted before they agree to the money side of things.

Dragon Man, I doubt such necessities will eventuate on what I was just told!

Yes, I have a bad habit of drinking with Engineers! However as was reported by Mateusz Maszczynski – 21 March 2019 (PYOC.com) Qantas Mainline Engineering are confirming that the Jetstar B787-8 is coming to Qantas Mainline (Destined for a Repaint and Cabin Refurbishment) for Mainline Regional Operations.

That’s 11 hulls! Jetstar is to get the A321LR that Joyce pre-ordered (do we remember Red Q?) replacing all of Jetstar's B787-8 hulls and which will cover their regional operations however the word is that this will also gear-up Jetstar to be able to fly the A350-1000 from 2026!

So, with 14 ordered +11 from Jetstar that will give Qantas Mainline 25 B787 Hulls. Whether the A350-1000 will come to Qantas Mainline or are flown by Jetstar (Or yet another Qantas subsidiary) Pilots will depend on what may be the competitive new “Business Case’!.

[ZebraFlyer]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as it stands in both the regulations and the QF LH EBA they are unable to roster duties as long as they want for Project Sunrise or whatever it’ll be called.

Why would AIPA and/or the pilot body accept a longer maximum tour of duty allowable? Aside from compensation commensurate with the insane duty time, who would want to go to work for for 22+ hours + transport from home/to hotel with the presumed drastic time zone changes to boot.. seems like hell on earth!

[Capt Colonial]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as it stands in both the regulations and the QF LH EBA they are unable to roster duties as long as they want for Project Sunrise or whatever it’ll be called.

Why would AIPA and/or the pilot body accept a longer maximum tour of duty allowable? Aside from compensation commensurate with the insane duty time, who would want to go to work for 22+ hours + transport from home/to a hotel with the presumed drastic time zone changes to boot.. seems like hell on earth!



In the FWC (Fair Work Commission) allegedly Qantas Captain Duggan and Qantas Captain Woods advised the commission that under the NABS (North American Bidding System) 65 to 70 % of Pilots had a lifestyle choice (comparative to seniority) and 30 to 35% did not (Blank Line holders). As the Pilots on the B-787 are finding, Qantas scheduling's unique equation of mixing Blank Lines into PSN (Squirrel Cage) is not having good results in lifestyle and time at home.

So, it’s not about the flight time on ULHO (Ultra Long-Haul Operations) and it is all about your time-off at home in between such flights and the ability to have some discretion over what flights one does and when one does them.

So Yes, you are correct. I suspect that few Pilots really want to conduct such punishing duties (Hell on Earth ...Maybe?) however the facts are that Qantas wants to operate ULHO and someone must crew those flights. So, if Pilots accept that is the outcome then what they need to write is the equation of how this work is achieved.

That is the challenge for the Pilots and the various representative Pilot organisations, AIPA, AFAP and QPA in regards to the fundamental type and mix of Scheduling, Remuneration and Time-Off.

Challenging to say the least!

[thec172man]

Dragon Man, I doubt such necessities will eventuate on what I was just told!

Yes, I have a bad habit of drinking with Engineers! However as was reported by Mateusz Maszczynski – 21 March 2019 (PYOC.com) Qantas Mainline Engineering are confirming that the Jetstar B787-8 is coming to Qantas Mainline (Destined for a Repaint and Cabin Refurbishment) for Mainline Regional Operations.

That’s 11 hulls! Jetstar is to get the A321LR that Joyce pre-ordered (do we remember Red Q?) replacing all of Jetstar's B787-8 hulls and which will cover their regional operations however the word is that this will also gear-up Jetstar to be able to fly the A350-1000 from 2026!

So, with 14 ordered +11 from Jetstar that will give Qantas Mainline 25 B787 Hulls. Whether the A350-1000 will come to Qantas Mainline or are flown by Jetstar (Or yet another Qantas subsidiary) Pilots will depend on what may be the competitive new “Business Case’!.

Mateusz Maszczynski from (PYOC.com), isn’t he some cabin crew guy with a blog that talks about cabin crew recruiting?

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Dragon Man, I doubt such necessities will eventuate on what I was just told!

Yes, I have a bad habit of drinking with Engineers! However as was reported by Mateusz Maszczynski – 21 March 2019 (PYOC.com) Qantas Mainline Engineering are confirming that the Jetstar B787-8 is coming to Qantas Mainline (Destined for a Repaint and Cabin Refurbishment) for Mainline Regional Operations.

That’s 11 hulls! Jetstar is to get the A321LR that Joyce pre-ordered (do we remember Red Q?) replacing all of Jetstar's B787-8 hulls and which will cover their regional operations however the word is that this will also gear-up Jetstar to be able to fly the A350-1000 from 2026!

So, with 14 ordered +11 from Jetstar that will give Qantas Mainline 25 B787 Hulls. Whether the A350-1000 will come to Qantas Mainline or are flown by Jetstar (Or yet another Qantas subsidiary) Pilots will depend on what may be the competitive new “Business Case’!.

The JQ A321LRs only have a range of approx 2500nm due to only 1 additional centre tank and a dense 232 pax config. Hence only the Bali flights are capable of being replaced. With new routes for the 787 being announced literally within the past fortnight (OOL-SEOUL) and around 50 787 S/Os being recruited into the JQ long haul operation this year I doubt there would be plans to give the 787s to QF. Don’t believe everything you read

[dr dre]

However as was reported by Mateusz Maszczynski – 21 March 2019 (PYOC.com) Qantas Mainline Engineering are confirming that the Jetstar B787-8 is coming to Qantas Mainline (Destined for a Repaint and Cabin Refurbishment) for Mainline Regional Operations.

That website is a cabin crew gossip site. Hardly authoritative. Added to the fact in that post there’s no confirmation of anything by engineering, just repeating of a rumour from another Facebook gossip site from an anonymous source.

however the word is that this will also gear-up Jetstar to be able to fly the A350-1000 from 2026!

Since when is anything planned 7 years in advance?

Whether the A350-1000 will come to Qantas Mainline or are flown by Jetstar (Or yet another Qantas subsidiary) Pilots will depend on what may be the competitive new “Business Case’!.

Looks like it’s EBA time again....

[Global Aviator]

Who would want to go to work twice a month?

Ok yes this would only happen if you only flew Sunriserarma.

22 hours each way, 3 days off in port? 44 hours for 5/6 day tour (with 2 full crew?). By 2 is 88 hours for the month 12 days away. Ahhh ok slip in a few domestic sectors or a ??? Seriously though. Would not seniority/ unions push to only operate ULH if this was a good thing? Even a Sunriserama flight plus a PER/LHR slip would be 2 duties for the month.

Whilst Singapore flight and duty no doubt diff has anyone seen a current ULH roster? Most likely diff from yesteryear as the 340 was certainly less frames than the 350.

Or should you fight to be like EK where fury time in the bunk?

Or am I oversimplifying?

[ScepticalOptomist]

I think some would like a 5 day trip worth around 38hrs credit - do 4 of them in 8 weeks. 20 days at work out of 56.

Im not for or against yet - details of how they will be crewed / rostered / remunerated will be important.

[crosscutter]

Looks like it’s EBA time again....


Indeed.



Whether the A350-1000 will come to Qantas Mainline or are flown by Jetstar (Or yet another Qantas subsidiary) Pilots will depend on what may be the competitive new “Business Case’!.



It all sounds so obvious and simple yet if only that pesky legislation wouldn’t get in the way again. Qantas want pilots to have that fear. Reality though, QF can’t employ in one entity whilst making pilots in Mainline redundant. This means they would have to pull out of London and LA (A380 flights) because they’re not profitable (and prove it) and offer VR and/or retrench the juniors on the 787....and then at sometime later restart those routes with the A350 with the new lower cost entity.

So Jetstar, EFA, and whoever else can put in all the business cases they like to fly the A350. For Qantas, it’s far more complicated than that.

[Vindiesel]

I don't follow your logic. Why would they need to make anyone redundant?

[crosscutter]

I don't follow your logic. Why would they need to make anyone redundant?

If I said straight out QF won’t be setting up another operation to fly project sunrise people would say what about this, what about that.

I tried to to create a hypothetical scenario to prove how difficult it would be for QF to legally achieve a way for another entity to fly the A350. Simultaneously dropping A380 services and having another entity replace that flying with A350’s is nigh on impossible based on current legislation and crewing requirements.

I appreciate the ageing demographic of QF. We have seen in the past what happens when a fleet retires and is not replaced.

Look at the number of people out of the system training at the moment...look at the numbers coming in at the bottom every month. When/if the music stops and if there was no fleet replacement there will be a surplus. The same script will be followed as last time and look what happened then. Long service leave is not what it was, retirements will drop, and it makes no economic sense to retrench from the bottom (Korda Mentha logic not mine).

Mainline will get the Project Sunrise aircraft because the conditions agreed to will be within ballpark

[SandyPalms]

What does a JQ 787 captain get paid in comparison to a QF one? I understand the a320 and 737 comparison is fairly close.

There would have to be some financial incentive to go that way and I can’t see any upside for QF, as it would surely cost more than simply a few percent on wages. This isn’t 2004, and unless another Australian Airline goes broke in the next 12 months, they won’t have the same desperate for a job (that’s not a shot at the AN pilots, that’s just the way it was) pilot pool to choose from either.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

JQ 787 base pay (base hours 75 per month) capt $228,927 FO $148,843, SO $82,414

As you can see, across all ranks the JQ 787 pilots get paid significantly less than their QF counterparts

Also worth noting that the agreement states that this pay is for ‘Wide Body single deck.’ So an A350 or 777x could be introduced without the need to renegotiate for a new type

[crosscutter]

I’m sure the A350’s in Jetstar colours will look as good as any other. Whether the required seat config and premium pricing requirement will suit the Jetstar business model is another question.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

I think the hypothetical scenario is that they wouldn’t be in JQ colours but JQ crew operating QF flights. You’ve got network operating A320s in QF colours in the west, Jetconnect operating QF 737s on the Tasman... Don’t underestimate QF managements ability to do some dodgy sh#t in the endless pursuit to reduce costs.

[Rated De]

I’m sure the A350’s in Jetstar colours will look as good as any other. Whether the required seat config and premium pricing requirement will suit the Jetstar business model is another question.




Precisely. It is of course contract season. Insert subsidiary.

At least one JQ CEO was shown the door for a flash of honesty regarding the long haul IR wet dreams of Little Napoleon et al. They failed to accept a reality in the Low Airfare space: It remains low airfares. Stretch the stage length and unit costs rise too. Unless an airline can grow revenues (increase prices) then operating margins decline. That they persist is more about ideology than economics.
There is no yield premium in JQ brand, their market niche is to stimulate leisure travel, thus they are forever demand elastic.

Of course, that won't stop the same old stories surfacing about JQ/ Network/Jetconnect etc taking over the 'flying'.

Qantas has not the slightest bit of interest doing it, execution risk is formidable. This is why they needed a narrative of 'terminal decline' last time to make the execution less risky.
Insiders know that it can't work, but of it they will still dream.
In the mean time.

Qantas need a new fleet.

[CurtainTwitcher]

https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/578899-jetstar-aus-nz-positions-9.html#post10396114

Interestingly in another thread you post (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/578899-jetstar-aus-nz-positions-9.html#post10396114):



Acording to the latest seniority list:

787 F/O approx 5 years from date of join.

A320 command currently around 6 years in Sydney.

Rough guides only of course as there are many variables, mainly how many extra airframes the A321LRs will result in.


Which brings up a very important point, there aren't any shortcuts in aviation. An East Coast widebody FO is running at 15+ years, a little more for a 737 command in mainline.

Jetstar are able to offer a lesser deal, as the time for promotion is much more rapid. You can go back to the original observation by the father of modern economics, Adam Smith in 1776 in the Wealth Of Nations (http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN4.html) for some guidance on these matters:

10.1.25 The probability that any particular person shall ever be qualified for
the employment to which he is educated, is very different in different occupations.
In the greater part of mechanic trades, success is almost certain; but very
uncertain in the liberal professions. Put your son apprentice to a shoemaker,
there is little doubt of his learning to make a pair of shoes: But send him
to study the law, it is at least twenty to one if ever he makes such proficiency
as will enable him to live by the business. In a perfectly fair lottery, those
who draw the prizes ought to gain all that is lost by those who draw the blanks.
In a profession where twenty fail for one that succeeds, that one ought to
gain all that should have been gained by the unsuccessful twenty. The
counsellor at law who, perhaps, at near forty years of age, begins to
make something by his profession, ought to receive the retribution, not only
of his own so tedious and expensive education, but of that of more than
twenty others who are never likely to make any thing by it.
How extravagant soever the fees of counsellors at law may sometimes
appear, their real retribution is never equal to this.

Compute in any particular place, what is likely to be annually gained, and what is likely
to be annually spent, by all the different workmen in any common trade, such as that
of shoemakers or weavers, and you will find that the former sum will generally exceed
the latter. But make the same computation with regard to all the counsellors and students
of law, in all the different inns of court, and you will find that their annual gains bear but a
very small proportion to their annual expence, even though you rate the former as high,
and the latter as low, as can well be done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far
from being a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many other liberal and honourable
professions, is, in point of pecuniary gain, evidently under-recompenced.

What Smith is saying is that, all things being equal, the pay matches the circumstances. Many Lawyers train, most don't aren't successful (in his day), those that do are rewarded well. But overall, of all those that study law, there is a net loss of income as a whole. Other jobs are quicker an easier to learn, but the income received is less. In a nutshell, the greater the risk to success, the better the pay.

Six years to command at a lower rate of pay, rather than 15 years as an on better conditions as an SO, which would you choose? I don't think it is any big secret that all the Qantas group entities are losing pilots to mainline.

So arguments about differing rates of pay need to be filtered through the lens of time to promotion as an adjunct to pay. Some will choose quick promotion, for age or the ability to fly as a contractor, others better T&C, but accept a slower career path.

One thing that is assured, if QF could wave a magic want tomorrow, and have all mainline new joiners on JQ T&C at the current extended time for promotion, those on the hold file with any experience would reconsider opportunities elsewhere. They need to offer better T&C to attract, the instant they don't they will struggle to crew aircraft just like everyone else.

I had a group general manager boast to me that he was going to pay 1/3rd less for his NZ Turboprop operation prior to startup. I don't believe they had a single application once they put it to the market. As I said, there are no shortcuts in aviation. Airlines have milked there once off screw-over of the industry, now they are paying the price with a big shortage. Qantas mainline is insulated only while it has better T&C with some semblance of delayed career progression. Remove either of those, things will change.

[Rated De]

I had a group general manager boast to me that he was going to pay 1/3rd less for his NZ Turboprop operation prior to startup. I don't believe they had a single application once they put it to the market. As I said, there are no shortcuts in aviation. Airlines have milked there once off screw-over of the industry, now they are paying the price with a big shortage. Qantas mainline is insulated only while it has better T&C with some semblance of delayed career progression. Remove either of those, things will change.

Which is why as yet, the much publicised 'academy' has yet to see the 'Stream Lead' turn the first clod of earth while struggling with a shovel.

Jetstar has a role, for a long time, the economics were ignored, bastardised in favour of IR leverage. As the shortage is patently obvious to the entire industry, economics become more important, after all very quickly grounded aircraft generate no operating revenue.

Qantas need focused capital expenditure, vision and strategy.
With Fort Fumble they get plenty of strategy from IR, which is of declining relevance.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

“Six years to command at a lower rate of pay, rather than 15 years on better conditions as an SO, which would you choose? I don't think it is any big secret that all the Qantas group entities are losing pilots to mainline.”

I’ll take the 6 years to command any day of the week!!

There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs.

[Chad Gates]

There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs

With respect, where did you get that from?To state that time frame sounds a little desperate.

[Rated De]

There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs.

Perhaps the accelerated path given JQ pilots was at the expense of the mainline pilots. As you quite rightly assert, there are entities flying Qantas colours too, beyond those routes gifted to JQ.
Nothing to stop QF management pursuing such a policy with contractors flying JQ aircraft, all in search of lower unit cost.

Of course though, that distracts from the present reality that the Qantas group finds itself.
An incessant internal focus, at war with various groups of staff yet the market continues to move beyond them.
Their fleet metrics are horrible.
Their Capital Expenditure requirements, will, in all likelihood, exceed at least six times what they spent buying their own shares back. Additionally, they still have to pay for the $9.5 billion JQ order. Instead, they focus internally, setting work forces all against each other, hoping to save a penny. Picking up a penny in front of a steam roller is not good long term strategy.

[CurtainTwitcher]

“Six years to command at a lower rate of pay, rather than 15 years on better conditions as an SO, which would you choose? I don't think it is any big secret that all the Qantas group entities are losing pilots to mainline.”

I’ll take the 6 years to command any day of the week!!

There are 1000 pilots at JQ and I can assure you that most have no desire to go to QF and be 15 year SOs.
Yes, I have absolutely no issue with that choice, it is fortunate, that, at least there is a choice. If being an SO for 15 years isn't attractive, the 737 RHS 4 leg days are on offer in every East Coast base at better than JQ pay, yours to be had. Yet mysteriously, even 6 month new joiners are able to get these positions at any base they choose, but don't seem to want to take them in the required numbers. The market decides!

The point I was trying to make, is there is a tradeoff, quick promotion, or better T&C, but you can't have both. In order to attract pilots to take the delayed promotional career risk something else has to be on offer. At the moment, that is exactly what is happening, mainline has sufficient applications of experienced pilots. However, If career prospects disappears, they will just be like everyone else scratching for crew.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Hey Chad, I am aware of the rough numbers who have gone across from JQ to QF in recent years and the number on the hold file for QF currently and I would say that around 5% of the 1000 JQ pilots are going or have gone across. The numbers and just general chat with my colleagues leads me with that conclusion that most don’t have the desire to go across.

The 15 years was stated by an earlier poster (curtain twitcher). I understand that 737 F/O is available to the guys that want to take it substantially earlier than this and with retirements and more aircraft orders on the way this time frame will continue to decrease.

The beautiful thing about the current landscape for QF group pilots at the moment is that if they want to go to mainline, that opportunity is available to them, and if they want to stay at their respective subsidiary for faster upgrade times or whatever their motivation may be, then they can obviously do that as well.

[OnceBitten]

I am aware of the rough numbers who have gone across from JQ to QF in recent years and the number on the hold file for QF currently and I would say that around 5% of the 1000 JQ pilots are going or have gone across.

That's 5% more JQ crew applying to QF than QF crew applying to JQ.

Doesn't that tell you something?

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

That's 5% more JQ crew applying to QF than QF crew applying to JQ.

Doesn't that tell you something?

plenty of MOU captains have resigned from QF and are staying at JQ. And the 95% of pilots who didn’t apply tells a story too.

[Vindiesel]

I would say that around 5% of the 1000 JQ pilots are going or have gone across.

Think you'd find your 5% is more like 10-15%.

[Rated De]

Think you'd find your 5% is more like 10-15%.

And the trickle down continues...

What is the probability that the DHC operations in more expensive cities are struggling to attract sufficient 'talent'?

Qantas has made a lot out of tying aircraft to pilot concessions.
Fundamentally, as Curtain Twitcher surprisingly pointed out, 737 jobs are in plentiful supply with limited uptake. One might posit has IR been so successful that the pilots have in fact accepted the lower terms and conditions achieved to be worth the effort?

The fleet problem is symptomatic of the broader malaise: Lack of strategic vision.
Fleet and strategy are hand in glove. Qantas lost the hand picking up pennies in front of the steam roller.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Think you'd find your 5% is more like 10-15%.

Perhaps! I haven’t gone through the seniority list and counted them. More of an educated estimate.

All I am trying to do is balance the discussion that there are many of us at JQ who have looked at our lifestyle, remuneration and career progression and decided that were happy where we are. Many of my colleagues who have gone across to QF that I have spoken to are happy with their move but have realised that working at QF has its fair share of issues too.

[Chad Gates]

That’s fair enough ECAM. If your lifestyle would be better served from JQ, all the power to you. I was asking where the 15 year figure came from.

[SandyPalms]

plenty of MOU captains have resigned from QF and are staying at JQ

I’m curious of when those decisions were made, and if the same decision would be made today. Other than the the bloke from Qrewroom who stated once, he’d like to be able to roll back the clock, are there any others?

[CurtainTwitcher]

That’s fair enough ECAM. If your lifestyle would be better served from JQ, all the power to you. I was asking where the 15 year figure came from.










Just to be clear, that is 15 years as an SO to a widebody FO position. Narrowbody FO, 6 months to any base. Of course there are many that choose to do a combination of the 15 years between SO and 737 FO.

They tell me you haven't really lived until you have done 3 or 4 days in a row of 11:00+ hours, consisting of multiple aircraft changes & 4 legs on the East Coast. Once someone takes a 737 slot, they cannot go back to being an SO, so the reality is new joiners who take this option will do 15 years of these days in the RHS.

[CurtainTwitcher]

I’m curious of when those decisions were made, and if the same decision would be made today. Other than the the bloke from Qrewroom who stated once, he’d like to be able to roll back the clock, are there any others?

Yep, talked to one on the weekend who probably wished he had not resigned to stay at JQ. He sees the prospect of a widebody command receding for him. He also viewed with trepidation the new software optimiser that is coming that will start to throw aircraft changes into the mix for his days.

[Don Diego]

Direct entry command in DHC operation is already a fact and last time I looked there were vacancies so despite management claims I would think they are struggling to find experience.

[Rated De]

Direct entry command in DHC operation is already a fact and last time I looked there were vacancies so despite management claims I would think they are struggling to find experience.

Thanks Don.
The situation is beginning to model the European experience.
The operators of lower tiered equipment in more expensive cities were the first to notice the shortage.
Suffice to say the demographic time-bomb has no short term solution.
IR were dragged up this way kicking and screaming to reality.
Reliable information suggests Network aviation, Jetconnect et al have little interest.
Sources suggest Stream Lead may well be using an 'internal survey' of pilots to strengthen the case to allow further foreign pilot entry. Parachuting the said individual into lead negotiator for IR is just part of the former AIPA President's brief.


The only way really to address the shortage is improvements to, rather than, reductions in terms and conditions.

[FightDeck]

It’s great to see scare tactics at EA time.
Here are the facts.
The 767 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The 747-4 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The A330 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award and 747 classic pay plus 5%.
The A380 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under award. Above 747 rates.
787 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots. Loss of a few key parts of award but regardless flown by QF pilots.

There are are numerous sections of the Fair Work legislation that are inconvenient for the scare campaign.
Primarily section 311.
(1) There is a transfer of business from an employer (the old employer ) to another employer (the new employer

if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees.
If Alan or earlier CEOs could get away with this it would of happened a long time ago. Yes they could start a new entity, but it would be an associated entity as stated in 311 and any employee would transfer on his or her existing EA.
In short. It’s too costly for nil gain. If the premise of the new entity is to undermine terms and conditions it’s illegal!

Under the Fair Work Act, an enterprise agreement that already covers the new employer would NOT cover a transferring employee who is covered by a ‘transferable instrument’, e.g. an enterprise agreement with the old employer. This is referred to in the act as the default position.

In order for a company’s enterprise agreement to apply to transferring employees, an employer would need to make application to the FWC (s318), seeking an order that the company’s enterprise agreement should apply to transferring employees.

Good for a scare campaign in negotiations. I’ve not once heard or read this threat officially ever from any CEO or manager.
If you provide written evidence either put it up or shut up.

Most of it comes from gullible people who are fed fake rumours to aid a company negotiating position.

[Vindiesel]

if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees.


Are you qualified to give this legal advice?

[dragon man]

It’s great to see scare tactics at EA time.
Here are the facts.
The 767 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The 747-4 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The A330 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award and 747 classic pay plus 5%.
The A380 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under award. Above 747 rates.
787 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots. Loss of a few key parts of award but regardless flown by QF pilots.

There are are numerous sections of the Fair Work legislation that are inconvenient for the scare campaign.
Primarily section 311.
(1) There is a transfer of business from an employer (the old employer ) to another employer (the new employer

if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees.
If Alan or earlier CEOs could get away with this it would of happened a long time ago. Yes they could start a new entity, but it would be an associated entity as stated in 311 and any employee would transfer on his or her existing EA.
In short. It’s too costly for nil gain. If the premise of the new entity is to undermine terms and conditions it’s illegal!

Under the Fair Work Act, an enterprise agreement that already covers the new employer would NOT cover a transferring employee who is covered by a ‘transferable instrument’, e.g. an enterprise agreement with the old employer. This is referred to in the act as the default position.

In order for a company’s enterprise agreement to apply to transferring employees, an employer would need to make application to the FWC (s318), seeking an order that the company’s enterprise agreement should apply to transferring employees.

Good for a scare campaign in negotiations. I’ve not once heard or read this threat officially ever from any CEO or manager.
If you provide written evidence either put it up or shut up.

Most of it comes from gullible people who are fed fake rumours to aid a company negotiating position.




In other words I think you are saying pilots are their own worst enemy and I whole heartedly agree.

[crosscutter]

In other words I think you are saying pilots are their own worst enemy and I whole heartedly agree.



Even worse...it’s not just the pilots but also those representing the pilots that seem unsure of legislation and its ramifications. Hence the scare campaign isn’t countered by those negotiating on our behalf and the uncertainty grows.

Perhaps this is purposeful to meet other objectives, which is worse still. But they seem reluctant to take a stand on their position regarding the Fairwork Act and the Project Sunrise aircraft which could put this issue to bed. So it’s left to people on PPRUNE (who aren’t qualified) to at least partially educate those with no idea. AD has put in print to the pilots why Network could not expand at the expense of Mainline flying. His reason...the FAIRWORK ACT as described above. It is very difficult for QF management (not impossible but very expensive, brand damaging, and impractical) to not have Mainline pilots flying the Project Sunrise aircraft. As it’s been said...if it wasn’t so hard, the transfer of business would have already been done!

[Rated De]

It’s great to see scare tactics at EA time.
Here are the facts.
The 767 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The 747-4 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award.
The A330 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under LH award and 747 classic pay plus 5%.
The A380 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots under award. Above 747 rates.
787 was ordered. Flown by Qantas pilots. Loss of a few key parts of award but regardless flown by QF pilots.

There are are numerous sections of the Fair Work legislation that are inconvenient for the scare campaign.
Primarily section 311.
(1) There is a transfer of business from an employer (the old employer ) to another employer (the new employer

if Sunrise flies under the Qantas name or flies to Qantas destinations then the Fair Work covers existing employees.
If Alan or earlier CEOs could get away with this it would of happened a long time ago. Yes they could start a new entity, but it would be an associated entity as stated in 311 and any employee would transfer on his or her existing EA.
In short. It’s too costly for nil gain. If the premise of the new entity is to undermine terms and conditions it’s illegal!

Under the Fair Work Act, an enterprise agreement that already covers the new employer would NOT cover a transferring employee who is covered by a ‘transferable instrument’, e.g. an enterprise agreement with the old employer. This is referred to in the act as the default position.

In order for a company’s enterprise agreement to apply to transferring employees, an employer would need to make application to the FWC (s318), seeking an order that the company’s enterprise agreement should apply to transferring employees.

Good for a scare campaign in negotiations. I’ve not once heard or read this threat officially ever from any CEO or manager.
If you provide written evidence either put it up or shut up.

Most of it comes from gullible people who are fed fake rumours to aid a company negotiating position.









Folks, rest assured that the IR and consultants have modelled and assessed execution risk for any strategy to 'outsource' mainline flying.
As correctly asserted, had it been feasible they would have ipso facto, already tried it.
One could deem the 'terminal decline' precisely that: A narrative to provide the impetus necessary to support a risky strategy to transfer a lot of their international ASK to JQ.
It is worth remembering that the QSA 1992, was the original reason that the fossil, Leigh Clifford said was the reason for the re-equipment delays. That the QSA 1992 prohibits facilities et al being 'outsourced' in aggregate greater than 50% is a limit that globalists detest. Stopping the wholesale sell off and outsourcing are special acts of parliament and indeed your work place laws. The Qantas International brand is still flying, albeit in a far reduced capacity, despite their effort.

The risk comes from the reality that cash flow is very fickle for an airline.
Cash flow shortages driven by non-compliant employees is a huge risk for it take little time for investors and other stakeholders to notice.
Diversions, fuel, medical and just not answering the phone, the list is endless and all have an operational cost.

Thus, a stalking horse that serves their agenda is a common as the sun rising in the east.

Qantas desperately need a new fleet. They need a new direction too, with airline specialist managers. Fort Fumble lacks these types of managers and should one appear they very quickly lose their heads.

[FightDeck]

Dragon man is on the money.
Much of the above is a legal summation of that part of the act S318 from a major legal/IR practice. It is not mine!
In fact there are more sections of the act which protect employment and prohibits transmission of business to other entities.
As the wise have noted, If Qantas were able to have crewed many of the last four Long Haul aircraft types to cheaper startups they would have! Can anyone provide any official written evidence from Qantas management or CEO that suggested Qantas 787 flying may be crewed by another entity? No because it was not legal.
It is the many requirements of the Fair Work Act and the sale act that have stopped them. Not any love of pilots from Qantas.
In fact if you transfer to Jetstar you need to sign an acknowledgement that you are waiving your S318 rights.
Its a negotiating technique of feeding disinformation unofficially to influence a company position.
Its a repeat of shiny metal jet syndrome same as the last EA. I can’t stop many getting played for fools however.
This time Qantas has turned around, made consecutive record billion dollar profits, paid record bonuses, share price is $5.50 not 0.92 cents. It’s up 375%. In the last half year alone Qantas had enough cash to buy back 378 million dollars worth of shares.
We have a global pilot shortage and the Qantas group can’t fill pilot positions in group entities.
As far as a negotiation for an eventual A380 replacement type, which will be flying Qantas aircraft to Qantas destinations, it is only pilots talking down the strongest position they have held for a long time.
I’m hoping from some stronger leadership from AIPA as pilots are their own worst enemies industrially.

[Rated De]

Dragon man is on the money.
Much of the above is a legal summation of that part of the act S318 from a major legal/IR practice. It is not mine!
In fact there are more sections of the act which protect employment and prohibits transmission of business to other entities.
As the wise have noted, If Qantas were able to have crewed many of the last four Long Haul aircraft types to cheaper startups they would have! Can anyone provide any official written evidence from Qantas management or CEO that suggested Qantas 787 flying may be crewed by another entity? No because it was not legal.
It is the many requirements of the Fair Work Act and the sale act that have stopped them. Not any love of pilots from Qantas.
In fact if you transfer to Jetstar you need to sign an acknowledgement that you are waiving your S318 rights.
Its a negotiating technique of feeding disinformation unofficially to influence a company position.
Its a repeat of shiny metal jet syndrome same as the last EA. I can’t stop many getting played for fools however.
This time Qantas has turned around, made consecutive record billion dollar profits, paid record bonuses, share price is $5.50 not 0.92 cents. It’s up 375%. In the last half year alone Qantas had enough cash to buy back 378 million dollars worth of shares.
We have a global pilot shortage and the Qantas group can’t fill pilot positions in group entities.
As far as a negotiation for an eventual A380 replacement type, which will be flying Qantas aircraft to Qantas destinations, it is only pilots talking down the strongest position they have held for a long time.
I’m hoping from some stronger leadership from AIPA as pilots are their own worst enemies industrially.



That they need new fleet is axiomatic.
What price they pay is up to the pilots.

[Tankengine]

Dragon man is on the money.
Much of the above is a legal summation of that part of the act S318 from a major legal/IR practice. It is not mine!
In fact there are more sections of the act which protect employment and prohibits transmission of business to other entities.
As the wise have noted, If Qantas were able to have crewed many of the last four Long Haul aircraft types to cheaper startups they would have! Can anyone provide any official written evidence from Qantas management or CEO that suggested Qantas 787 flying may be crewed by another entity? No because it was not legal.
It is the many requirements of the Fair Work Act and the sale act that have stopped them. Not any love of pilots from Qantas.
In fact if you transfer to Jetstar you need to sign an acknowledgement that you are waiving your S318 rights.
Its a negotiating technique of feeding disinformation unofficially to influence a company position.
Its a repeat of shiny metal jet syndrome same as the last EA. I can’t stop many getting played for fools however.
This time Qantas has turned around, made consecutive record billion dollar profits, paid record bonuses, share price is $5.50 not 0.92 cents. It’s up 375%. In the last half year alone Qantas had enough cash to buy back 378 million dollars worth of shares.
We have a global pilot shortage and the Qantas group can’t fill pilot positions in group entities.
As far as a negotiation for an eventual A380 replacement type, which will be flying Qantas aircraft to Qantas destinations, it is only pilots talking down the strongest position they have held for a long time.
I’m hoping from some stronger leadership from AIPA as pilots are their own worst enemies industrially.



A380 + 10% !

[dragon man]

A380 + 10% !

Would be nice but that horse has bolted. It’s the 787 rate plus some,get back night credits, something for ultra long haul on top of the credits. But, just as important IMO is the crew complement, a cockpit toilet and seperate crew rests.

[SOPS]

Would be nice but that horse has bolted. It’s the 787 rate plus some,get back night credits, something for ultra long haul on top of the credits. But, just as important IMO is the crew complement, a cockpit toilet and seperate crew rests.

Have you ever seen the Emirates Cockpit Crew rest?

[dragon man]

Have you ever seen the Emirates Cockpit Crew rest?

No, could you enlighten me please?

[Rhodes13]

No, could you enlighten me please?


Located at the rear of the aircraft near the L5 door (777). It's actually the cabin crew rest that EK pays Boeing to modify for two extra berths. The Pilots crew rest is the smallest of all the bunks and theres no ability to sit upright as the only space is the bunk. If you're over 6ft you can't sleep entirely flat out. All this was done at the behest of the boss who wanted a vaulted ceiling in First.

Mind thats better than the 380 with the bunks in the middle of the Economy cabin on the older birds or below decks on the newer ones where once again you can't sleep properly if you're over 6ft. The company knows about the issues but just shrugs its shoulders and says they're looking into solutions. Meanwhile its been about 2 years and still no solutions found.

[C441]

But, just as important IMO is the crew complement, a cockpit toilet and seperate crew rests.

Interestingly, very few reports have been submitted regarding the crew rest on the 787 and one of those was in relation to the call system rather than the proximity of the bunks.
That's not to say it couldn't be improved on the 350.:)

[wombat watcher]

Think you have it the wrong way around. Maybe you should be pointing to the Qantas crew rests as an example of what is the standard. Not pointing at substandard crew rests which results in the overall lowering of work conditions.

Angryrat,
given your hostility to your employer, and given your response, maybe it would round out your attitude if you would research how QF set the standard for tech crew rest facilities.

[dragon man]

I feel we are wandering off the track here, what I would like is two seperate crew rests or more depending on the agreed crew compliment , a bed to allow a 1.9 meter pilot to lie flat comfortably, proper noise insulation, in flight entertainment available. The company will squeal like a stuffed pig , but bad luck that’s the cost of doing business.

[Rated De]

I feel we are wandering off the track here, what I would like is two seperate crew rests or more depending on the agreed crew compliment , a bed to allow a 1.9 meter pilot to lie flat comfortably, proper noise insulation, in flight entertainment available. The company will squeal like a stuffed pig , but bad luck that’s the cost of doing business.

It is actually a duty of care issue.

They would of course actually need to order aircraft first.

[Rated De]

Whether Fort Fumble seek yet another internal war with staff remains a valid concern.
That their focus is inwards tell an observer everything about their 'strategy'

If one considers how much effort it takes to run a strategically positioned airline, the capital and the know-how it begins to make sense why the focus is instead internal, as it is far easier and requires less vision.
It is also, with a growing shortage of qualified pilots extremely short sighted.

In the meantime, Qantas need a new fleet.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jetstar-shows-interest-in-a321xlr-for-australia-japa-458638/

Another order coming up for JQ perhaps.

This could be the aircraft that allows JQ to send their 787s to QF and return to a single type operation.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

4000nm in a narrow-body? :yuk:

[crosscutter]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/jetstar-shows-interest-in-a321xlr-for-australia-japa-458638/

Another order coming up for JQ perhaps.

This could be the aircraft that allows JQ to send their 787s to QF and return to a single type operation.



That makes sense and has been suggested by many. The training/crewing costs incurred atm might have opened a few eyes.

[The Green Goblin]

It was always the plan. The 788s back to mainline to replace the stolen generation as they run out of hours. JQ to figure out how they can cram 400 seats into a 789.

Personally I think JQ do low yield mass transport well. The A321s are a no brainer, and would work well point to point to various singlet and thong destinations. Further cementing our enviable reputation abroad.

One thing is is for sure, let’s hope they put bigger water and waste tanks in. 5 hours in and once the various craft beers are gone, it’s not uncommon to wonder if the waste system is going to play ball till stumps. I suppose there is always the sink......

[Don Diego]

Hey GG, I went JQ once as a punter and never again, it was the WORST flight I have ever done. I will happily pay the asking price for any other airline to be rid if that s&%t.

[Rated De]

Here you go Little Napoleon, apparently no longer do you need to employ people to invent project names, have super secret strategy and desperately hope Chairman's lounge and upgrades keep the daily rags full of QF column inches.

You can actually go and order a real aircraft. They apparently exist!

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-confirms-both-a350-variants-viable-for-qanta-458641/

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Hey GG, I went JQ once as a punter and never again, it was the WORST flight I have ever done. I will happily pay the asking price for any other airline to be rid if that s&%t.

That’s the business model, you don’t want to fly on the bogan bus, fork out and fly QF. It’s the same company! It’s the reason JQ will never become the JetBlue of Australia, if it gets too good (or rather less sh!t) people will start wondering why they’re paying extra to fly QF.

But the average punter will just go for the cheapest airfare most times.

[Don Diego]

Hey ECAM, there was no QF on that route at the time so then one looks elsewhere and never looks back!!! Great business model.

[Chocks Away]

Further to Project Sunrise (http://www.orientaviation.com/articles/4406/conquering-the-tyranny-of-weariness-) ... good luck :cool:
From another article (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/78879-qantas-expects-project-sunrise-aircraft-offer-by-mid-3q19) : " Joyce also pointed out that Qantas is the only airline in the world which could order a significant number of Ultra-long-haul aircraft as there was no other major market which is as remote as Eastern Australia" ...
This comment just shows his caliber :ugh: What an extremely naive and ignorant comment. How about Air EnZed's fine example? ... LAN (Chile)/ LATAM; SA Airways; Finnair; Aerolinas Argentinas... the list goes on.
Happy Landings:ok:

[Rated De]

Further to Project Sunrise (http://www.orientaviation.com/articles/4406/conquering-the-tyranny-of-weariness-) ... good luck :cool:
From another article (https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/78879-qantas-expects-project-sunrise-aircraft-offer-by-mid-3q19) : " Joyce also pointed out that Qantas is the only airline in the world which could order a significant number of Ultra-long-haul aircraft as there was no other major market which is as remote as Eastern Australia" ...
This comment just shows his caliber :ugh: What an extremely naive and ignorant comment. How about Air EnZed's fine example? ... LAN (Chile)/ LATAM; SA Airways; Finnair; Aerolinas Argentinas... the list goes on.
Happy Landings:ok:

That there long ago ceased to be investigative journalism is in part reason why these statements go unchallenged.
It is fanciful that the industry seriously allows such rubbish to be printed.

" Joyce also pointed out that Qantas is the only airline in the world which could order a significant number of Ultra-long-haul aircraft as there was no other major market which is as remote as Eastern Australia"

With the A380 development cost exceeding $9.5 billion, then Little Napoleon will need to buy a whole lot of aircraft to 'bind' the manufacturers.
Outside the Australian, home field myopia Qantas is a small insignificant airline, Jetstar even less so.

[Rated De]

“We are obviously having to talk about the regulator, about changing the regulations or having the regulations suitable for this long-haul flying and what does it mean for fatigue risk management for both pilots and cabin crew and how is the company going to manage that,” Joyce said.“So there shouldn’t be anything that is uniquely difficult about it. It’s typically what we have done when we have extended the operation each other time.” “You are designing something that is very different. You are designing something for 21 hours,” Joyce explained.


So Little Napoleon which is it?
As far as your duty of care to your employees, it is simply an 'incremental change', but for customers it is very different.
Extrapolating fatigue and health outcomes on a linear basis is not statistically valid is it?

Will be interesting to see what 'science' supports an exemption.

[dragon man]

“We are obviously having to talk about the regulator, about changing the regulations or having the regulations suitable for this long-haul flying and what does it mean for fatigue risk management for both pilots and cabin crew and how is the company going to manage that,” Joyce said.“So there shouldn’t be anything that is uniquely difficult about it. It’s typically what we have done when we have extended the operation each other time.” “You are designing something that is very different. You are designing something for 21 hours,” Joyce explained.


So Little Napoleon which is it?
As far as your duty of care to your employees, it is simply an 'incremental change', but for customers it is very different.
Extrapolating fatigue and health outcomes on a linear basis is not statistically valid is it?

Will be interesting to see what 'science' supports an exemption.


The reality is he doesn’t care and will say what ever is necessary to get what he wants.

[Rated De]

The reality is he doesn’t care and will say what ever is necessary to get what he wants.


Of course not, but an astute pilot representative body 'leader' will be ensuring that the distinction is made clear to Little Napoleon.

[gtseraf]

Of course not, but an astute pilot representative body 'leader' will be ensuring that the distinction is made clear to Little Napoleon.


Unfortunately any leader needs to be supported by the whole pilot group. This industry's history, worldwide, has many instances of leaders doing their best to achieve a certain goal but not being supported by the "troops", despite the "verbal support" of said troops. Any issue needs to have the complete support of all the pilots to have any chance of success, sadly, it would appear that this point has been recognised by the employers and they will use any tactics to ensure this does not occur.

[Rated De]

Unfortunately any leader needs to be supported by the whole pilot group. This industry's history, worldwide, has many instances of leaders doing their best to achieve a certain goal but not being supported by the "troops", despite the "verbal support" of said troops. Any issue needs to have the complete support of all the pilots to have any chance of success, sadly, it would appear that this point has been recognised by the employers and they will use any tactics to ensure this does not occur.

That is fair commentary.
Perhaps the behaviour of the Stream Lead predecessor set a low bar.

That the incumbent is also a very junior 'aspirational' makes it easy to manipulate agendas. Having been shown some of his 'musings' which he attempts to pass as erudite, they are very similar to numerous Qantas press releases, suggesting that perhaps the first thing he gave Little Napoleon when 'negotiating' a new type was a CV.

[dragon man]

that is fair commentary.
Perhaps the behaviour of the stream lead predecessor set a low bar.

That the incumbent is also a very junior 'aspirational' makes it easy to manipulate agendas. Having been shown some of his 'musings' which he attempts to pass as erudite, they are very similar to numerous qantas press releases, suggesting that perhaps the first thing he gave little napoleon when 'negotiating' a new type was a cv.

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[Beer Baron]

some of his 'musings' which he attempts to pass as erudite
Well if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black, then I don’t know what is.

[wheels_down]

Why don’t they spin off Jetstar?

The business is ripe for a spin off and is relatively stable. Obviously QF could retain a 20% odd holding to maintain its collaboration.

Enormous upside for QF as a business and it’s fleet/debt plans if this was to occur. Would essentially kill of Virgin.

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Have a listen to how many times Joyce says ‘dual brand strategy’ during the next annual profit statement. I don’t think JQ will be sold off under his reign.

[crosscutter]

Would essentially kill of Virgin.

That is the last thing Qantas want. Nothing better for business than a weak competitor in a duopoly.

[Rated De]

Have a listen to how many times Joyce says ‘dual brand strategy’ during the next annual profit statement. I don’t think JQ will be sold off under his reign.



As originally pitched to the Dixon era management, the likely elements were to wedge domestic competitors; either follow QF on yield and brand (spend) or follow JQ on unit cost.The unit cost argument is spurious as scant detail exists on JQ. No segment breakdown is forthcoming; noone can see it other than internal managers how things really look. Similarly, former CFO Gregg detailed the competitive wage tension in the 'group' a JQ model would create is a matter for public record. That the JQ fleet accelerated with Little Napoleon and the fossil if likely a result of an IR focus and the desire to drive unit cost outcomes.
The fact that all low fare airlines, no matter what their unit (labour) cost struggle with yield is well known. Their customers are 'price loyal' not usually brand, thus any attempt to raise price and yield is often not successful.
Further, Little Napoleon wants all and sundry to know he created JQ. Factually, he was at Ansett when the concept was pitched to and accepted by, senior Qantas management. This is the hero myth.

The JQ model has merit at a smaller scale. It has little relevance internationally and the lack of transparency is suggestive that subjective management discretion is applied to 'who pays for what'.
Taking Qantas' own figures at face value, JQ can only achieve 29% of the revenue flying 48% of the ASK. Not only is scale an issue but it is evident that the business lacks the ability to do anything than offer 'low fares'.

Whilst Little Napoleon sits in the big chair, there is zero possibility that how much effective subsidy occurs will ever be known. It remains opaque and the accounting standards are exploited (not illegally) to ensure that a little from column A and a little from column B keeps the accounts opaque and thus eye pleasing to the less than curious!

[dragon man]

The bottom line IMO is that Jetstar should be folded into mainline, what were leisure routes 15 years ago are no longer. Running two outfits with seperate management, AOCs, training Department’s etc is just crazy . You buy a Qantas ticket you get the same conditions and service every where. Won’t happen, I know.

[Chris2303]

The bottom line IMO is that Jetstar should be folded into mainline, what were leisure routes 15 years ago are no longer. Running two outfits with seperate management, AOCs, training Department’s etc is just crazy . You buy a Qantas ticket you get the same conditions and service every where. Won’t happen, I know.

So then we go back to a monopoly on NZ domestic routes and JQ pull off the AKL-RAR route to name but one.

Is that what we really want?

[Rated De]

The bottom line IMO is that Jetstar should be folded into mainline, what were leisure routes 15 years ago are no longer. Running two outfits with seperate management, AOCs, training Department’s etc is just crazy . You buy a Qantas ticket you get the same conditions and service every where. Won’t happen, I know.


The duplication relates to everything. In order to firewall the labour groups, most structures, with the exception of treasury and aircraft sourcing have to be duplicated, right down to boarding pass readers at the branded gate.
There represented a unique opportunity circa 2003 to re-equip Qantas and set the airline on a course different to the current trajectory.

Qantas could easily have re-furbished the 734 and 763 into high density 'QantasLite' and used the same sunk cost (paid for by the taxpayer) to serve leisure markets. This was tried yet abandoned with Australian Airlines.
The mess that currently sees costs duplicated hidden by opaque accounts, is neither efficient nor replicated anywhere else in the industry. There is a reason why.

[dragon man]

Duplication but different fleets domestically, madness. Different booking systems , fuel policies, the list is endless the savings huge. As long as the CEO is an inbred Qantas person who is mainlining the Qantas koolaid nothing will happen. Eventually the job will be so big that it can never happen, maybe we are already there.

[Global Aviator]

Not duplicated anywhere else in the industry :8

Virgin/Tiger?

Hmmmmmm...

[dragon man]

Not duplicated anywhere else in the industry :8

Virgin/Tiger?

Hmmmmmm...

Yes, but doesn’t interest or concern me.

[Rated De]

Not duplicated anywhere else in the industry :8

Virgin/Tiger?

Hmmmmmm...


It is not duplicated in scale or expanse in any other 'airline-within-an airline'.
Airlines like Singapore and others have a small Low Fare Airline within the main game, no one else has a business the scale of JQ.
There is a reason why BA and Air New Zealand abandoned theirs.

[Global Aviator]

It is not duplicated in scale or expanse in any other 'airline-within-an airline'.
Airlines like Singapore and others have a small Low Fare Airline within the main game, no one else has a business the scale of JQ.
There is a reason why BA and Air New Zealand abandoned theirs.

Well now you mention it SQ and Scoot is exactly the same as QF JQ, well not the same SQ is huge and Scoot is becoming hugerer, well the are at least merging one brand into both. By that Silk into SQ and Scoot.

Not having a domestic market does make it different however split it to longer international and domestic international distances.

Anyway back to the original thread...

QF 321NEO’s?

Project BananananaRamamaaa A350’???

OrnitalX...

[Blueskymine]

It’ll be project sunset by the time the company gets whatever it gets and works out a deal to fly them.

[1a sound asleep]

Jetstar should be folded into mainline,
Are you not watching? Mainline is slowly being folded into JQ

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Jetstar's already saved Qantas. Where can its boss fly to next?Started as a defence against Virgin, the budget airline is now a money making machine in its own right. So where to next for Jetstar and its man in charge?

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/jetstar-s-already-saved-qantas-where-can-its-boss-fly-to-next-20190611-p51wnu.html

[ECAMACTIONSCOMPLETE]

Let’s see how Rated De rebukes this one...

[Tankengine]

Rebuking isn’t all that hard.
Even the commentators say it has cannibalised mainline, taking passengers that would have paid more and charging them less for their seats.

[ExtraShot]

Ah of course.

Qantas Domestic repeatedly outperformed Jetstar, (As did Frequent Flyer), but Jetstar ‘saved’ Qantas. Bah! Yield, who needs it?!

JQ has its place, but come on now.

Though Perhaps Since JQ is such a money spinner the JQ pilots might like to remind their management of the vastly improved new Tiger Agreement (Tiger not as profitable). The ‘amazing’ business has been practically printing money and saving the entire group so they can obviously now afford to match it?!

[ScepticalOptomist]

That’s why the JQ pilots have the best T&Cs... :)

Oh, and, thank you for keeping the group solvent!!

[Rated De]

Let’s see how Rated De rebukes this one...





Assuming you asked with a genuine desire to understand how Jetstar is far from a saviour, it is worth remembering statements like Mr Evans are impossible to test. Mr Evans knows that. If Mr Evans wishes to open the company to scrutiny, invite investigation and stand behind such an assertion, then there are simple things he can do:

1. Segment Jetstar International as a separate operating segment.
After all the parent who needed saving is reported separately from FY12. (i.e. QF International and QF domestic) Presumably he is happy to do this to show the value add?

2. Detail precisely what rate Jetstar pays to Qantas for the A320, 787 and A321 aircraft.
Qantas retains ownership of the aircraft, ‘leasing’ them to Jetstar. It is highly probable from our figures that the rate is nowhere near a commercial rate, therefore it remains an effective subsidy which advantages Jetstar.
Inherently, Jetstar ought to meet the requirements of a reportable segment, probably ought exceed the qualitative and quantitative thresholds in AASB 8 Operating Segments. Even if they don't senior management can ‘choose’ to report a segment anyway if they believe doing so would be of benefit to investors. Ask yourself why they do not?

Whilst discounted leases are in no way illegal, they do hide an effective subsidy, which is material to any assertion made by Mr Evans and he knows this.
The Air Transport Licensing Authority (ATLA) decision regarding Jetstar Hong Kong detailed specifically that ownership and control of the aircraft resided with Qantas, not Jetstar Hong Kong.
This was a central tenet of the rejection of the application.

When Little Napoleon ascended the throne, Jetstar had a fleet less than 40, now their fleet (with their associates) is larger than the parent. Despite this scale and flying some 48% of the ASK of the parent they cannot generate more than 30% of the revenue. Total group revenue in the year before Little Napoleon's coronation was 12% higher in real terms than today. Qantas group, in a decade went backwards in real terms.

Let not actual facts get in the way of a good story.

Qantas need a new fleet.

[a_pilot]

Rated De,

Despite this scale and flying some 48% of the ASK of the parent they cannot generate more than 30% of the revenue

And what is the point here ? What are you trying to say ?

[V-Jet]

Rated De,



And what is the point here ? What are you trying to say ?

If I may be so bold, may I suggest it’s along the lines of:

Let not actual facts get in the way of a good story.

Qantas need a new fleet.

[Rated De]

Rated De,



And what is the point here ? What are you trying to say ?

An issue of scale.

If you look at the segment revenues, deploying an additional ASK (at the margin) to Qantas instead of Jetstar delivers more revenue.

In the absence 'like for like' cost apportionment (management deciding who pays for what) Qantas can claim that 'lower unit cost' means Jetstar has better operating margin.
Mr Evans admits that the unit cost at Jetstar is somewhere between an established and a low fare airline, stating,
Should it be like the much-derided Irish carrier Ryanair, which charges passengers £20 ($36) if they haven't printed their own boarding pass and £55 ($100) if they haven't checked in online?Or closer to a "hybrid" carrier, which impinge the on full-service market like JetBlue in the US or even Virgin Australia.

Evans says Jetstar has landed somewhere in the middle, because that's where its customers want it to be




Thus, as a mid cost airline its margins are narrow, particularly with respect to how little revenue it generates from flying its ASK.
It is highly probable that the parent picks up the cost of many things including the aircraft capital cost, some engineering and port costs. Be creative there is literally no limit!
Thus, it needs a new fleet to again lower its unit cost, a fact to which Mr Evans also alludes. Bruce Buchanan (former JQ CEO) lamented this problem during his tenure.
Comparing Qantas unit costs to competitor airlines shows Qantas mid way. Qantas enjoyed, until management trashed the brand a substantive yield premium for product.

The trick to remember is what the late CEO Herb Kelleher of Southwest said;
(paraphrasing)

"You can have the lowest cost airline, or the highest revenue airline and still go broke. What matters is the gap between the two."

If Little Napoleon has really 'transformed' Qantas it ought have a lower unit cost and better operating margin.
This operating margin would be orders of magnitude better if they had, like all their competitors, re-equipped the fleet with fuel efficient long range wide body twins.

Instead, they persist pouring capacity into Jetstar, in a forlorn attempt to grow. The may grow capacity, but the (revenue) return from the additional capacity indicates rather strongly that the growth in revenue is sub optimal.

A new fleet of Qantas International would have almost halved their CASK (fuel included).

[PPRuNeUser0198]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuO0_cJ-L_k

[a_pilot]

Rated De,

Just a simple basic question.

What is more important for a business, revenue or profit ?

What is essential for it to survive, revenue or profit ?

For the shareholders, are dividends based on revenue or profit ?

For the staff, is the bonus based on revenue or profit ?

[Australopithecus]

That’s four questions. And Rated is trying to illustrate that JQ's profits, if any, may be illusory.

[Street garbage]

So can someone explain to a simpleton like me..why are Joyce/ Evans and their hired help (Harbinson etc) talking it up- ie the Strategic basis of this- other than it's EA time.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Read the Australian Accounting Standard on segment accounting. AASB8 (https://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content105/c9/AASB8_08-15_COMPnov15_01-16.pdf) and decide for yourself.

As an outsider, corporate accounting looks a bit like the responsibility of a Pilot In Command. Lots of general rules and principles, but ultimately a lot of flexibility to run the Corporation in a non-prescriptive (from a legal perspective) manner as the "Chief Operating Decision Maker" deems fit.

My interpretation of the rules is this: You have lots of flexibility to arrange your segments how you deem fit, and note how you did it in your segment accounts. However, those segment account notes are not required to be disclosed in the aggregated financial report. This subtle difference in reporting requirements is the crack that Qantas wedged open to drive the proverbial truck through for industrial relations purposes.

There is no contradiction between shifting revenues and costs between entities "on a reasonable basis", turning profitable internal entities into loss making ones and vice versa, and making public statements to that effect. Without the accounting report & notes and the basis of those shifts it is impossible to actually determine what really happens in each entity. Qantas could choose to report those internal segment accounts, however they don't. Therefore, public statements on the profitability of any internal entity is on a "trust us" on what is a "reasonable" basis.

But you don't need to take my word for it, read the standard yourself and draw your own conclusions.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1664x660/screen_shot_2019_06_16_at_7_36_54_am_825fe43973fbaabe5c6cec1 664b25c9336b46fe5.png
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1646x1442/screen_shot_2019_06_16_at_7_37_08_am_b239c9e099c1513362e7732 80392c262cddad97f.png

[novice110]

And Rated is trying to illustrate that JQ's profits, if any, may be illusory.

Qantas retains ownership of the aircraft, ‘leasing’ them to Jetstar. It is highly probable from our figures that the rate is nowhere near a commercial rate, therefore it remains an effective subsidy which advantages Jetstar.

Could I suggest that Rated De is not doing a very good job at proving this ?
With no basis in fact, and without evidence, we are left to consider this view as opinion, or 'the vibe'.