So you need a new fleet Leigh?

[Rated De]

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 ?

Presumably you ask out of a genuine desire to understand what is happening.
Our point is that the way Qantas CHOOSES to present Jetstar removes any ability of an investor to assess the merits of any assertion.

From a strategic management perspective consider the following:

A decision is made to switch growth from one airline (Qantas) to the other (Jetstar). In an economic sense, it is practice to add capacity (or supply) until the addition of a unit of capacity means that it does not cover the cost of doing that.The transfer to Jetstar (including the accelerated growth under Little Napoleon) ought given their claims of lower unit cost have delivered improved margin (operating margin revenue minus cost).
Therefore, early on the Jetstar capacity increases probably showed reasonable margin. That it continues is surprising. That an airline with a fleet count similar to their parent flying 48% of the ASK generates only 30% of the parent revenue suggests that the capacity being granted to Jetstar is in excess (a scale problem)

Well intentioned senior management would recognise this. Perhaps this is why Mr Evans is actively touting the A321 as it lowers the fuel included CASK. This is why he states it is a mid cost carrier. What Mr Evans is flagging is that Jetstar margins are squeezed.

The Jetstar business cannot generate yield with a higher unit cost. The only way Jetstar (and any low fare airline) can generate an operating margin is to simultaneously have low unit cost and higher revenue. That is the objective of any business. The weakness of the low fare model is that full service airlines can replicate elements of the lower cost model. The full service carrier can grow operating profit margin as their ability to generate yield is far better. The only way the low fare airline can maintain margin is to continually lower cost, which in theory works well, but has practical limits.

As Little Napoleon states dual brand, it is a dereliction of strategic management that capacity is denied to the parent.

IFF he truly has 'transformed' anything, then additional capacity into Qantas International with a fuel efficient wide body twin fleet would instantaneously lower his unit cost and improve profit as his fuel expense would almost halve.

To answer the question, as the revenue of the group has gone backwards since Little Napoleon's coronation and Mr Evans has telegraphed that Jetstar has rising unit cost a better operating margin in the 'now transformed' Qantas International is easily achievable. To do what all other airlines have already done( re-equipping QFI) would mean tempering Little Napoleon's fetish for all things Jetstar.

Instead, as CurtainTwitcher remarks, they choose not to provide detail of the Jetstar segment, because it suits their agenda. AASB 8 allows them to choose not to disclose anything much, so they don't.
Rest assured there have been a lot of heated discussions on 'strategy' at Fort Fumble with incumbent CEO usually victorious.

Simply ask yourself why Qantas refuse to provide detail on Jetstar? As management themselves determine who pays for what, the Qantas International segment can for instance pay for fuel, or aircraft purchases, or engineering, or staff in corporate, it is impossible to determine without seeing the management accounts how much subsidy Jetstar actually receives from the parent. Ultimately, there is nothing illegal in that. What is entirely disingenuous and misleading to both staff and regulators is that the profitability of Jetstar is repeated without substantiation and idiots like Peter Harbison (CAPA) with his Chairman's lounge access regurgitate it.

Seeing as though you mention dividend, which itself is a function of profit. Would it not be a better use of capital to re-equip and lower fuel costs improve operating profit margin and profitability, than simply spend AUD$2.5 billion buying back shares?

Qantas need a new fleet

[Beer Baron]

Thus, as a mid cost airline its margins are narrow, particularly with respect to how little revenue it generates from flying its ASK.

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."
Do you see the utter contradiction in your post? You obsess over ‘revenue’ and then use a quote which explicitly points to the fact that you could be “the highest revenue airline and still go broke”.

You choose to ignore the cost side of the equation when clearly that is the whole point of a low cost airline. (And no, it is not a ‘mid cost’ airline. The article was putting it midway between 2 different low cost operators).

[V-Jet]

Except all of RD's (and everyone else's) points are completely wrong! Qantas is run by a genuine Messiah and Gareth is just as good.

SMH today: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?

By Patrick Hatch (https://www.smh.com.au/by/patrick-hatch-hvf90)

JUNE 15, 2019

When Gareth Evans was 19 he and a mate shared an urge to see the famed canals and picturesque cobbled streets of Amsterdam.

Two full days later, travelling from their homes in Birmingham in the UK, hitchhiking the long road to the coast and braving the ocean crossing by ferry, the pair arrived.

Today, a couple of young lads from the Midlands wanting to explore the Dutch capital can get there for little more than $100 and an hour of their time squeezed into a smaller-than-average aeroplane seat.

The cost of flying has fallen dramatically over the past 30 years, thanks to more efficient aircraft and greater competition.

Low-cost carriers have chipped away at the dominance of full-service airlines and made air travel accessible to millions of people for the first time.


Now 50, Evans' hitchhiking days are well behind him. But as the boss of budget airline Jetstar he's still occupied with the task of getting from A to B as cheaply as possible.

Jetstar has had more than 300 million passengers since it started flying 15 years ago, and says two-thirds of them paid less than $100 for their ticket.

While it is not as glamorous as Evan's previous posting within the Qantas group, running its international business, Jetstar actually makes more money for the company.

And Evans says the role is as challenging as any he has had in the 20 years since a recruitment firm poached the ex-KMPG accountant from Caltex to join Qantas.

“That was a month before QF1 went off the runway (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2009/behind-the-qf1-investigation/) and two months before Richard Branson launched Virgin Blue," he recalls.

"Then within a year or so of that Ansett had gone broke. Then 9/11 had happened. Anybody would say that the time they joined was an interesting time, but I think it was a fairly interesting time."

Evans has moved through roles in finance, ticket pricing and scheduling, and has had three of the most senior positions in the company - chief financial officer, CEO of Qantas International, and since November 2017 he has been the boss of Jetstar.

Evans - who tends towards the business casual attire of open collars and chinos, and has recently cultivated a neat grey stubble - says it took him seven or eight months to adapt to the Jetstar "mindset" after years in a business where lounges, lie-flat beds and champagne on arrival are crucial to attracting lucrative corporate travellers.

“I was definitely, in those earlier months, having to pull myself up... to make sure that I hadn't just impinged on Jetstar’s cost base, or done something that’s going to confuse customers in terms of the brand differentiation," he says.

"I had to pull myself up and say: whilst we want to do this and we would have done it at Qantas, the business isn’t set up to deal with this sort of change."

With successful stints across almost the entire Qantas business, Evans is considered a leading candidate to become the next CEO of Qantas, one of the country's highest-profile corporate jobs.

[QUOTE]Wasn’t Bill Shorten odds-on favourite to become the next prime minister.

That's something he won't be drawn on when he sits down with the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on the sidelines of the International Air Transport Assocciation's annual general meeting earlier this month.


“Wasn’t Bill Shorten odds-on favourite to become the next prime minister?" he quips.

Even if running Jetstar is the final holding pattern before Evans lands at the head of Qantas, aviation watchers say it won't be an easy few years - especially if he is expected to deliver the kind of growth Jetstar has achieved in the past.

Qantas was being "monstered" by Richard Branson's Virgin Blue (pictured) and had to respond.

But questions about Jetstar's outlook are nothing new.

When its first flight took off from Newcastle bound for Melbourne on May 25, 2004, Qantas was said to be taking a huge risk on the budget offshoot, run by a young executive called Alan Joyce.

Successful budget carriers like Ryanair in Ireland and WestJet in Canada were popping up around the world, but every attempt by a full-service airline to launch one had been a disaster.

In Australia, the low-cost carriers Compass and Impulse had failed in a tough environment that also claimed Ansett in 2002.

Qantas' CEO at the time, Geoff Dixon, says starting Jetstar was crucial for Qantas to fight back against Richard Branson's Virgin Blue, which was rapidly growing since its launch in 2000.

"We were getting monstered by Virgin," Dixon remembers.

"Their cost base was so much lower and they were coming particularly at our leisure market. Honestly, we were finding it very hard to match them.

"We had to find a way to do this and do it successfully."

Dixon says there was a "lot of tension" in senior management, with a view that Jetstar would cut Qantas' lunch.Not in our wildest dreams could we imagine it ending up as it is.

Geoff Dixon, former Qantas CEOTony Webber, an aviation consultant at Airline Intelligence and Research and an economist at Qantas from 2004 to 2011, say Qantas "hated Jetstar, with a passion".

"They were taking Qantas’ passengers - there’s no doubt about it."

CAPA Centre for Aviation chairman Peter Harbison says that if the doubters had won and Jetstar had never have taken off, Qantas today would be "totally stuffed".Jetstar is now Australia's second biggest international airline, carrying 9 per cent of the passengers in and out of the country.

The plan worked, and Virgin flattened out almost from day one, Harbison says, forcing it to eventually change tactics and morph into a full-service airline going head-to-head with Qantas while eventually buying its own budget arm, Tigerair, to keep Jetstar in check.

From its start as 14-plane barricade against an uppity challenger, Jetstar has grown into a behemoth in its own right.

It has 135 jets flying to destinations in 16 countries, and has established "franchises" (with Qantas a minority shareholder) in Singapore, Vietnam and Japan, where it is the country's leading low-cost carrier.

“If you look at it today, it flies on almost every single city pair, it flies during the peaks," says Webber.
"It's started chasing yield rather than chasing passengers and share. That tells you the way the strategic importance of Jetstar to Qantas... has changed completely."

Jetstar is now Australia's second biggest international airline, carrying 9 per cent of the passengers in and out of the country - behind only Qantas (17 per cent), and ahead of Singapore Airlines (8 per cent).

It turned $3.7 billion in ticket sales into a $461 million underlying profit last year - or about a third of Qantas' total earnings. That's more than Qantas International contributed with its $399 million profit from $6.9 billion in revenue.

"It was as much a defensive strategy as anything... but it grew into a profit and growth opportunity pretty soon," says Dixon, who left Qantas in 2008.

“Not in our wildest dreams could we imagine it ending up as it is. It just makes Qantas as group so formidable."

Leigh Clifford, Qantas' chairman from 2007 to 2018, says the airline had succeeded where others had failed in setting up a low-cost arm without compromising safety, financial control or cannibalising its premium arm.

“You shouldn’t underestimate the challenges," the former Rio Tinto CEO says on phone from London.

“It’s now very much part of the growth engine of the Qantas group as a whole. It’s been a great success."[i]Easy yards overSo Evans has inherited a large and healthy business. But it is also starting to mature. The "easy yards" to deliver growth have already been run, according to Chad Slater, chief investment officer at Morphic Asset Management and a long-time aviation watcher.

“How does it get any better for Jetstar in Australia?" he asks.

“The problem is that it has done its job. I don’t know how you can run that business much better.”

Jetstar will also have to manage how an economic slowdown hits its customer base of price-sensitive holiday markers.

“Holidays are one of the most discretionary purchases you can make - it’s not like BHP flying a worker home," Slater says.

“If it grows capacity, it’s going to start eating into Qantas’ profitable routes and they’re not going to let that happen. And the other problem is you can’t put up prices. None of these things bode well for that business."

Slater's fund took a short position in Qantas from September 2018 at about $6.30, believing that after a successful turnaround and a stellar share price recovery the stock was overvalued and heading for a correction. It is now $5.74.

Webber predicts the plunging Australian dollar will cause major headaches, as it stops Australians from travelling overseas and will compound the pain caused by elevated fuel prices.

“A route like Melbourne-Honolulu and routes [like] Sydney and Melbourne into Singapore, into Bali, on those long sectors which are taking Aussies into leisure destination, they’ll have problems," he says.

Jetstar is not as glamorous as Qantas International, but Evans says the job is just as challenging.

Harbison, from CAPA, says Jetstar has no way to actually grow its business unless it buys more new aircraft than the 18 set to enter its domestic fleet over the next three years.

He argues Qantas was too conservative on its capital expenditure to allow that, and after more than a decade of constant growth, Jetstar's capacity has hit a plateau over the last three years.

“They’re not buying any more aircraft, which I think is chronic," Harbison says.

“They need to be growing, and because of Qantas’ capex issues, and wanting to have a high share price, they’re not.”Levers to pullFor his part, Evans acknowledges that the economic outlook and consumer confidence - how customers feel about their ability to afford a holiday - has a major influence on his business.

But he also thinks attitudes to travel are changing and people now consider an annual holiday more of a household staple than a luxury.

He says he has levers to pull to keep Jetstar cruising at altitude.

His planes are about 87 per cent full, and he reckons that can increase to the low 90s. Airfares have also gone up moderately.

Even better, per-seat earnings are growing faster from what airlines call "ancillary revenue" than from the higher fares.

Ancillary revenue is the extras customers buy on top of their basic ticket, from checked baggage through to snacks on board, in-flight entertainment or an eye-mask and a toothbrush.

That revenue grew 8 per cent in the third quarter, from new luggage options and its Club Jetstar program, where people pay $49 a year for access to lower fares and other perks.

Evans says Jetstar can better leverage data to tailor the information and add-on products offered to each individual customer, based on their past behaviour.

While some travellers decry the lack of amenities on budget airlines, Evans says the ancillary model is a win-win for the airline and for customers.

"A customer does not have to spend a dollar on ancillary if they don’t want to. They are then choosing because those products are attractive to them," he says.

“I hate the term low-cost carrier. It projects a certain picture in people’s minds and that’s not what we represent. Low cost does not mean low service – what it means is choice. I think a much better term is we’re 'choice' airlines."

Getting the right balance with just how basic to make the basic product and how much "choice" to give passengers, was one of the biggest challenges Evans had when he took over at Jetstar.

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.

One "game-changing" development for Jetstar is the arrival of 18 new Airbus A321neos LR aircraft for its domestic fleet between 2020 and 2022, and three for Jetstar Japan.

The new jets use less fuel and are cheaper to run than its existing Airbus A320s fleet, which the airline is likely to retire once the new ones arrive.

The really exciting part for Evans is that the new single-aisle aircraft can travel 700 kilometres further. That means they can fly domestic routes during the day, and then overnight from Australia's east coast to Bali.

Not only is flying aircraft almost 24-hours-a-day the most efficient way to run an airline, the A321s will free up some of Jetstar's 11 Boeing 787 Dreamliners which currently fly to Bali for other potentially longer routes.

"We’re going to see over the next two or three years as we execute on that, 30, 40 per cent growth in the Jetstar Australian international business," says Evans.New routesThe airline is looking hard at potential new routes, and last month announced it would start flights from the Gold Coast to Seoul in December. It has set up a code-share partnership with South Korean budget airline Jeju Air, which it says will give it a better balance of in-bound and outbound passengers.

“Korea is an example of the opportunities that we’ve got," Evans says.

"I think we will see a huge surge in Australians going to Korea once we bring low-cost fares to the market and a significant increase of Koreans coming to Australia.”

Jetstar's minority-owned offshore businesses have given the brand reach across Asia, but they've been financially patchy. Its last full-year accounts said all Jetstar airlines in Asia were profitable, but at its most recent half-year results only Japan was called out for staying in the black. Jetstar declined to comment when asked to clarify the point.
Evans says the group frequently looks at opportunities to buy or go into partnerships with other low-cost carriers.

"You’ve got to be very careful in Asia to get it right - you can lose a lot of money," he says.

"The strategy was never to be in every country - it’s about being in the right countries, in the right way with the right partner."

Qantas' board, led by its new chairman, ex-Wesfarmers boss Richard Goyder, recently asked Joyce to stay on as the company's CEO until at least 2022.

That will be a 14-year stint - a long time running an ASX-listed company by any measure. If Evans is counting down the days, he doesn't show it.

"Alan’s done and is doing a wonderful job and he’s going to be here for many years to come. My focus is doing the job that I’ve got. Jetstar is a great organisation and I’m thoroughly enjoying being the CEO of that business. That’s what gets me up in the morning and that’s what I enjoy and that’s what my focus is going to be on."

"You’ve got to be very careful in Asia to get it right - you can lose a lot of money," he says.

That bit IS correct! Mind you, they were told that before they lost it...

[V-Jet]

I'm too ill now, but can someone write to Mr Hatch and explain a few things - like most of what he's been told is complete rubbish?

[Rated De]

Jet Blue unit costs are closer to fell service (fuel included) but don't let that get in the way

[Arthur D]

Do you see the utter contradiction in your post? You obsess over ‘revenue’ and then use a quote which explicitly points to the fact that you could be “the highest revenue airline and still go broke”.

You choose to ignore the cost side of the equation when clearly that is the whole point of a low cost airline. (And no, it is not a ‘mid cost’ airline. The article was putting it midway between 2 different low cost operators).

BB - I fear logic got lost somewhere between analysis and paralysis in this debate.

Rated - Apart from your original assertion, which I agree with, I am now lost as to what your point is? At one stage I thought you were actually trying to say that Qantas had lower costs than Jetstar........ hopefully I am mistaken on that one.

Rask - Cask = Profit... its as simple as that.

[a_pilot]

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

This must be some kind of Mantra to you, as I have lost count the amount of the times you have stated this fact over the past year or longer in this thread. Perhaps over 5 times now ?

I ask again, what are you to trying to achieve by saying this ? Are you trying to point out that Jetstar (the Jetstar in the FY18 report) is a complete and utter dismal failure ? You use revenue to exaggerate what a failure Jetstar is, and you deliberately overlook the important fact which is actual profit.

As you say Let not actual facts get in the way of a good story

Now let's look at some facts, from the Qantas FY18 report.

Even though Jetstar flew some 48% of the ASK of the parent company, it actually made 40% of the profit using only 30% of the revenue. Not bad hey ? It is actually not as bad as you make it out to be. Let's look at profit and not revenue when comparing how successful something it as even you mention the importance of profitability to an airline.

Now most people here are arguing that Qantas need a new fleet, and discussion usually revolves around a widebody fleet for Qantas International.

So now let's look at some more facts and compare Qantas International vs Jetstar (the Jetstar which flew 48% ASK for 30% revenue, Jetstar Australia, JQ, which someone always denigrates, the Jetstar in the FY18 report).

Qantas INTL flew 69,280 ASKs vs Jetstar 48,763 ASKs.

Qantas INTL made $6,892 M revenue compared to Jetstar $3,767 M.

Qantas INTL made $399 M EBIT vs Jetstar $461 M EBIT.

What good is revenue if there is no profit ? Yet someone keeps denigrating Jetstar based on revenue alone.

Qantas INTL flew 42% more ASKs for 14% less profit. It is very obvious which is more profitable.

Qantas INTL have an operating margin of 5.8% vs Jetstar 12.2%.

Qantas (INTL + DOM) made 3.4 times more revenue but only 2.5 times more profit. It is obvious which generates better profit compared to revenue.

From these facts above, it is very obvious that Jetstar (Jetstar Australia, JQ) is a much better return on investment compared to Qantas International.

Continue to denigrate Jetstar (Jetstar Australia, JQ) as much as you like, but that facts speak for themselves.

As someone else also pointed out, you do contradict yourself.

You wrote Would it not be a better use of capital to re-equip and lower fuel costs improve operating profit margin and profitability BTW, I notice that you happily use the term profit and not revenue here.

Isn't investing in Jetstar (Jetstar Australia, JQ) compared to QF INTL something that improves profitability for the airline group ?

I rest my case.

Yes sure Qantas might need a new fleet, but don't denigrate Jetstar (JQ) as it's not such a failure as some like to make it out to be.

[dr dre]

Isn't investing in Jetstar compared to QF INTL something that improves profitability for the airline group ?

I rest my case.

Don’t rest it just yet. Why don’t you do an accurate comparison of QF INT vs JQ INT? Compare the equivalent part of each segment because comparing the whole of JQ vs just QF INT isn’t fair.

[a_pilot]

Why don’t you do an accurate comparison of QF INT vs JQ INT? Compare the equivalent part of each segment because comparing the whole of JQ vs just QF INT isn’t fair.

Because the discussion here is specifically about a new widebody fleet for QF INTL, and someone here specifically denigrated the Jetstar group as a whole (48% ASK vs 30% revenue, this is the Jetstar Group as a whole that they specifically mentioned).

It is not fair that someone only mentions revenue to denigrate Jetstar without looking at how much profit it actually makes.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Without access to the internal accounting notes, all anyone can say is the Qantas Group makes $X profit or loss in total. The profitability of each internal segment is basically a totally opaque & malleable quantity, to suit the desired narrative.

If they were really to invest where the money is made, they would have shut down the operational side and turned the whole thing into Qantas Loyalty! That is where the big $$$ are, Oh wait...

[ScepticalOptomist]

Qantas INTL made $399 M EBIT vs Jetstar $461 M EBIT.

What good is revenue if there is no profit ? Yet someone keeps denigrating Jetstar based on revenue alone.

Qantas INTL flew 42% more ASKs for 14% less profit. It is very obvious which is more profitable.

Qantas INTL have an operating margin of 5.8% vs Jetstar 12.2%.

Qantas (INTL + DOM) made 3.4 times more revenue but only 2.5 times more profit. It is obvious which generates better profit compared to revenue.

From these facts above, it is very obvious that Jetstar (Jetstar Australia, JQ) is a much better return on investment compared to Qantas International.


That’s the problem / point you’re missing - did they really or did QF foot a lot of the bills for JQ making the figures above look better for JQ to suit the narrative?

[777Nine]

That’s the problem / point you’re missing - did they really or did QF foot a lot of the bills for JQ making the figures above look better for JQ to suit the narrative?

And thanks to clever accounting, we will never really know.

My two cents: You can only lower the operating cost to a certain point, and excluding the external factors of which you have no control over. But the magic happens when you make more money, as it's not sustainable to just focus on cost cutting. I think that Jetstar domestically has a scale problem given our tiny population and vast distances. Internationally, there is way too much competition with a lower cost base.

Compare Jetstar to say that of RyanAir, with the massive European market it has at its disposal. I wouldn't be surprised if Qantas is covering some of the bills for Jetstar, just to ensure that it appears more profitable than it really is.

​

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Jetstar has a pretty low cASK and it is likely as low as it can go without any fundamental change in the model. As mentioned previously - LCC's can't yield up unless they're the only operator on a particular market and there is demand on that market that isn't driven by leisure. Jerstar does a good of capturing yield via ancillary revenue. I think they're pushing the $30 per person mark from the different materials I have seen on the internet. That's pretty good globally with the best airline in the world (Spirit in the US) pushing USD$45 per passenger.

Leisure demand is inelastic so it is a precarious seesaw of pricing flex for JQ. What matters most is that JQ drives an enviable EBITDAR margin. This is what matters. This is the cash. The rest (minus lease costs) is just for accounting purposes, and the current operating margin is good. Contribution earnings to the QF Group as a whole isn't so much as important as the ability for JQ to generate strong cash flow. Now, is JQ being supported by Qantas in different areas where it is appropriate to? Yes. As it should. It is a group company and the group should take advantage of opportunities to spread cost, leverage scale, and muscle capability to support each other (but not at the risk of another). If JQ was a stand-alone company the results would be different. We know this. But it would still be making money. It has strong market share and provides for the other portion of the market. It would be profitable on its own if it was. The only issues is that the is a capacity limit in Australia due to our low population and consistency in competition. When growth stops, and fixed costs cannot be spread further, and you get cASK creep - margins are eroded, with the only option to increase fares, which doesn't work.

[Rated De]

Now, is JQ being supported by Qantas in different areas where it is appropriate to? Yes

There is nothing wrong with a company doing it, but to do it and then ignore the benefit of doing so to leverage other more nefarious agendas is poor form.

[Rated De]

Because the discussion here is specifically about a new widebody fleet for QF INTL, and someone here specifically denigrated the Jetstar group as a whole (48% ASK vs 30% revenue, this is the Jetstar Group as a whole that they specifically mentioned).

It is not fair that someone only mentions revenue to denigrate Jetstar without looking at how much profit it actually makes.

Nobody is 'denigrating' anything.

Reading published accounts that are compliant with AASB 10 is one thing, to actually know how costs are allocated between and to segments is beyond the scope of the 'General Purpose Audit'.
To actually derive the genesis and magnitude of the purported profit of Jetstar requires three important steps:

Segment Jetstar into two operating segments, Domestic and International
Not simultaneously report Jestar Asia as both a controlled entity under AASB 127, yet for the purposes of some select transaction neglect the control element and determine that certain inter-segment revenue is actually external.
Allow an audit to ascertain the materiality threshold applied by executive management. Management can simply set a high threshold, say $200,000 whereby any invoice under that amount does not go the the segment incurring it, but is picked up by, say hypothetically Qantas International. Auditors do not investigate 'materiality threshold' they simply at their annual audit see that management applied their threshold consistently, whatever it is. They make no judgement whether it is appropriate, nor are they required to.

These small changes to the accounting of Jetstar would allow the statements made by Mr Evans and Little Napoleon to be tested. When in CY13 Little Napoleon required AUD $3 billion of taxpayer assistance, he quickly backed away because the audit that would need to be conducted was to examine materiality. That is why a mere six weeks later he withdrew his request.

There are reasons management choose not to disclose more detail.
A business with such a huge footprint generating so little revenue for all the ASK, would, ordinarily be viewed closely.
Further, the degree to which management discretion is applied to costs incurred by Jetstar could conceivably massage Jetstar CASK.
This can easily provide a distortion to actual profit.

Qantas could have re-equipped with a wide body international fleet, of two engine variety, lowering the CASK (fuel included), improving their operating margin and probably building yield.
That they don't is peculiar.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I was told by (I would think) a reliable source that on one international route, if the passenger spends no other money than the actual ticket, ie no ancilliaries at all, then JQ make a low single digit cent profit on the seat. If all the passengers on board do this, JQ make $3.25 for the leg.

[Rated De]

I was told by (I would think) a reliable source that on one international route, if the passenger spends no other money than the actual ticket, ie no ancilliaries at all, then JQ make a low single digit cent profit on the seat. If all the passengers on board do this, JQ make $3.25 for the leg.

This point is very important.
Most airline cost is fixed (or sunk) thus low fare airlines need that ancillary revenue as the ticket price "the bait" does not cover the entire cost.

In ancillary revenue terms, Jetstar in 2016 (latest data on hand) made USD $26 per passenger. Annually that was USD $600,000,000.00
Qantas too make ancillary revenue from mostly Frequent Flyer, which naturally is almost dependent upon the International business.

Small movements in a Low Fare Airline CASK kill margin, with fuel being able to wipe them out entirely.

Thus if Qantas persist with a dual brand 'strategy' to focus on the demand elastic low fare airline at the expense of the parent is foolish.

Re-equipping the QF International operation with fuel efficient aircraft is low hanging fruit that even Little Napoleon ought be able to reach.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Rated D - what about the impact of capital cost or lease cost incurred to 'reequip' the Qantas fleet. This is a financial consideration that has not been discussed. It is easy to say cASK is lowered by more fuel-efficient aircraft, but to reequip also incurs considerable expense. Would Qantas not consider these factors in its decision to invest now or hold?

[crosscutter]

A good question. Best answered by AJ.

And while he’s answering, ask if the return of capital employed on the Jetstar 787’s has justified their allocation? Was it an allocation decision based on strategy rather than ROCE?

Will a new aircraft order improve the ROCE of Jetstar International by a greater amount than the commensurate amount of capital spent in Mainline?

Sh*t. I should be a journalist.

[dragon man]

Rated D - what about the impact of capital cost or lease cost incurred to 'reequip' the Qantas fleet. This is a financial consideration that has not been discussed. It is easy to say cASK is lowered by more fuel-efficient aircraft, but to reequip also incurs considerable expense. Would Qantas not consider these factors in its decision to invest now or hold?

If we are to go this deep then we need to consider maintenance savings as well as delay costs saved from having a more reliable fleet plus a better product with newer interiors.

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Crosscutter - JQI would not have survived if JQ did not take on the 787's asap. The operating economics of the 330 and the 787 are worlds apart. I suspect JQI is already financially hammered. The 330 would have obliterated it.

'ROIC' is a better measure here.

Dragonman - Product can be replaced. You can make a clapped-out frame look new again with a new interior and fresh coat of paint. Reliability - that may subjective. Well maintained aircraft with the right schedules will be reliable. It is component failure/wear that drives this.

[crosscutter]

ROIC is correct...thanks.

My point I guess, is QF need to generate a certain ROIC for any investment. For Mainline that ROIC seems a lot higher than for JQI. No JQ bashing here, just pointing out that now that both businesses are ‘mature’ any investment decisions should be based on similar criteria. For this to occur JQI’s financials should be released.

[Rated De]

Rated D - what about the impact of capital cost or lease cost incurred to 'reequip' the Qantas fleet. This is a financial consideration that has not been discussed. It is easy to say cASK is lowered by more fuel-efficient aircraft, but to reequip also incurs considerable expense. Would Qantas not consider these factors in its decision to invest now or hold?

The original narrative that the fossil Clifford pushed was the QSA 1992 was the reason for the lack of re-equipment, it is a little disingenuous to say capital was hard to find when they spent over AUD $2.5 billion buying back their own shares, which is not surprising given the vesting dates of all the management options.

Arguably, better use can be made of capital than enriching the insiders.

Qantas have deferred fleet decisions preferring to engage in social discourse, identity politics and advance the agenda held by the CEO, running an efficient airline ranked nowhere near its list of priorities.

The A330 is likely beyond a mid life airframe. What is to replace these?
The A380 is likely at book value way in excess of the actual realised sale value (second hand)
The 747 (with the exception) of the ER (6) aircraft are aged and have substantial CASK inefficiency.
The oldest of the 737 fleet are in excess of 17 years.

That the committed to re-equipping the entire Jetstar fleet without battering an eye lid is perhaps indicative of their intent, costing AUD $9.5 billion.
Whether that business can deliver an IR nirvana and an adequate ROIC is debatable.

A 'transformed' Qantas has no doubt improved the CASK, a replacement of international fleet would improve their fuel included CASK by a considerable margin.
It ought improve operating margins.

That they do not do this perhaps has something to do with ideology rather than economics.

[Rated De]

There you go you old fossil Leigh, it wasn't the Qantas Sale Act 1992 making aircraft purchase difficult.

See Little Napoleon, just like the little engine you can order aircraft.

Did this have a special project name? A secret team?
Did you need apply the same template to Jetstar's route economics as you claim you do for Qantas, just what ROIC do you actually achieve?
Have you repatriated a tangible profit from Singapore yet, how about Vietnam, what about Japan? Of course leasing aircraft back and forward isn't really profit now is it?

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-group-updates-airbus-order-with-extra-long-range-a321/?fbclid=IwAR2T15ve_T1FU3c0PKPEEP3_vPwaaAoVEpJu1Es2hGE9NZ_9Gp wUhZjB3-g

[Rated De]

You can also call cousin Willie he just did it too...

https://simpleflying.com/iag-boeing-737-max-order/

[das Uber Soldat]

You must be fun at parties.

[dragon man]

You must be fun at parties.


Please explain?

[Vindiesel]

You must be fun at parties.

Does one need to provide one's own tin foil hat for a Rated De party?

[Beer Baron]

It’s like an echo, you yell out but the only reply is yourself saying the same thing over and over.

[V-Jet]

It’s like an echo, you yell out but the only reply is yourself saying the same thing over and over.
Even though that approach seems to have worked so well for Alan, repetition of a theme does not make a viewpoint less accurate - especially so with new data arriving daily!

[Rated De]

.... the further an LCC plane flies the less of a cost advantage it has over traditional airlines. Fuel can rise from 30 to 50 per cent of operating costs shrinking profit margins.

This is precisely why Mr Evans wants to lower unit cost; his unit cost is much higher the longer the stage length and his revenue remains soft.

Last year, Jetstar’s earnings before tax was $461 million. Qantas doesn’t factor out Jetstar’s international revenue, however, only saying it had “strong earnings”.

This is because the Jetstar International business is elastic.

Imagine if Qantas had decided lowering unit cost at the 'transformed' Qantas International was met with a new fuel efficient fleet.
Qantas could have much improved RASK/CASK margin, lower fuel spend, generate less pollution and do so generating more revenue.


“Many of the markets developed under the long-haul low-cost banner may prove sustainable, but the operating model seems likely to be lower cost rather than true low cost,” said Flight Global's Lewis Harper.

Then, axiomatically if the model can't deliver revenue premium then operating margins continue to shrink the further a low fare airline flies.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/reason-why-lowcost-airlines-cant-make-longhaul-flying-work/news-story/12aad538d8aec8528282a6d22ab19415


Qantas, not Jetstar need the new fleet.

[das Uber Soldat]

I'm legitimately worried old mate is going to have a stroke when jq ends up with the new fleet.

[dragon man]

If they get 321 and Qantas get the 787s back you might be surprised as it would partly satisfy the present problem.

[Global Aviator]

If they get 321 and Qantas get the 787s back you might be surprised as it would partly satisfy the present problem.

I say start the Red Q approach and get back into Jetstar HK at the same time...

[Angle of Attack]

These long range A321’s I’m guessing at least half will go to mainline, this is what they have been craving for ages. Who knows about 787 transfers but so what.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Though it is about Boeing, it articulates a more general observations about the extractive nature of the top level predators across the business world.

What will it be, Boeing? Great airplanes that generate cash flow or great cash flow, period?
Employees come to work to do their jobs. We aren’t usually aware of workplace culture, even over a span of years.

We learn culture from co-workers and managers when they make decisions and demonstrate problem-solving skills. Leadership messages affect thousands of decisions that add up to success or failure of the organization.

For many years, Boeing competed with Airbus and other producers for airline customers based on performance of its products. As a recent news report put it, Boeing now competes for investors with Exxon and Apple.

Boeing rose to the top of the airplane business as an engineering company, focused on performance of its products. Boeing made bold decisions that “bet the company” and prevailed over competitors.

In the ’90s, Boeing business culture turned to employee engagement, process improvement and productivity — adopting the “quality” business culture that made Japanese manufacturers formidable competitors.

In the late ’90s, Boeing’s business culture shifted again, putting cost-cutting and shareholder interests first.

Some business cultures are well-suited to commodity-like products but are a bad fit with performance-driven products.

Ask a financial analyst, “Are airplanes commodity-like or performance-driven?”

Business instinct is to cast the question as a market transaction. Airline customers worry about price, delivery dates, training costs, spares, maintenance and other factors, but, overall, those considerations come out very close in the end. The last major innovation in air travel was the jet engine in the 1950s. A business analyst would say the airplane business is “mature,” the products are standardized, innovation is slow, so airplanes are commodity-like.

Now ask a different question: “Are the design, development, testing and manufacture of airplanes commodity-like or performance-driven?” Whoa. Tough question.

Actually, making airplanes is performance-driven.

Success or failure of an airplane program turns on productivity. The first airplanes off the production line sell at a loss. Costs come down over time, the quicker the better. If your business model emphasizes productivity, employee engagement and process improvement, costs go down faster. This was the essence of the “quality” business model Boeing followed in the mid-’90s. The 777 had the best “learning curve” in the business.

On the other hand, if your industry is mature, and your products are commodity-like, business-school theory says a cost-cutting model is appropriate.

Wal-Mart perfected its particular version of the cost-cutting business model. Amazon adapted that model to its industry. Boeing has adapted it to high-end manufacturing. These companies are super-stakeholders with market power over their supply chains. The point of this business model is that the super-stakeholder extracts gains from the subordinate stakeholders for the short-term benefit of investors.

Subordinate stakeholders are made to feel precarious and at-risk. Each supplier should see other suppliers as rivals. Similarly, each work location should know it competes on cost with rival work locations. Each state or local government should compete for incentives against rival states.

In this model, subordinate stakeholders never say “no” to the super-stakeholder — not workers, not suppliers, not state legislatures.

This cost-cutting culture is the opposite of a culture built on productivity, innovation, safety, or quality. A high-performance work culture requires trust, coordination, strong problem-solving, open flow of information and commitment to the overall success of the program. In a high-performance culture, stakeholders may sacrifice for the good of the program, understanding that their interests are served in the long run.

In the productivity-based 777 program, it would have been career-limiting to withhold negative information from managers. They needed timely information to find a solution as far upstream as possible.

According to Boeing’s annual reports, in the last five years Boeing diverted 92% of operating cash flow to dividends and share buybacks to benefit investors. Since 1998, share buybacks have consumed $70 billion, adjusted for inflation. That could have financed several entire new airplane models, with money left over for handsome executive bonuses.

Boeing’s experience with its cost-cutting business culture is apparent. Production problems with the 787, 747-8 and now the 737 MAX have cost billions of dollars, put airline customers at risk, and tarnished decades of accumulated goodwill and brand loyalty.

Hat Tip to Zeffy (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/621879-max-s-return-delayed-faa-reevaluation-737-safety-procedures-30.html#post10512210) for originally posting this.

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/what-will-it-be-boeing-great-airplanes-that-generate-cash-flow-or-great-cash-flow-period/

[Going Boeing]

QF needs a new fleet.

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/cracks-trigger-airbus-a380-wing-spar-inspections?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20190709_AW-05_733&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000002253698&utm_campaign=20310&utm_medium=email&elq2=f3355c9460c64862ada223a1171a8b74

[Rated De]

QF needs a new fleet.

https://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/cracks-trigger-airbus-a380-wing-spar-inspections?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20190709_AW-05_733&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000002253698&utm_campaign=20310&utm_medium=email&elq2=f3355c9460c64862ada223a1171a8b74




Thanks Going...

Makes the AUD$2.5 billion wasted on share buy backs a rather interesting indulgence.
Wonder what the book value is versus the saleable value now?

[wheels_down]

For what reason does QF persist on hanging onto the A380 fleet while every other carrier in existence signed 10 year leases and is walking at year 10?

Why does the QR/SQ strategy of short term high turnover lease agreements not seem to apply to QF?

I understand all the tax and depreciation issues we face here, but surely they would still be better off handing back the keys at the ten year mark and write off subsequent losses. It’s the 10-20 year mark that seems to be financially and operationally destructive.

[Rated De]

For what reason does QF persist on hanging onto the A380 fleet while every other carrier in existence signed 10 year leases and is walking at year 10?

Why does the QR/SQ strategy of short term high turnover lease agreements not seem to apply to QF?

I understand all the tax and depreciation issues we face here, but surely they would still be better off handing back the keys at the ten year mark and write off subsequent losses. It’s the 10-20 year mark that seems to be financially and operationally destructive.


This is a very good discussion.
Leaving aside the depreciation and taxation differences, there has been a drain of knowledge from QF.
Ironically, they seem to have little problem rolling and renewing fleet for JQ, ultimately though the aircraft are owned by Qantas and the QF carries the book value, real or imagined.
Given Little Napoleon has sold most of the silverware including the buildings, catering and even terminal leases, overpriced aircraft are all they really have as assets with which to leverage.

It was long a concern for many analysts that Qantas carried long-haul fleet on the books for far more than they were really worth in the second hand market.
Suffice to say as the reason for the 'biggest loss' and stunning' transformation' an aircraft write down provides great leverage for nefarious management, as well as a personal enrichment scheme when 'fortunately' one has a whole bunch of well timed options.

[wheels_down]

It appears to all come down to poor fleet planning. Some plan and order their fleets like clockwork. You have Qatar as an example, who has their fleet plans outlined for the next two decades. They could tell you precisely what their fleet would be in the year 2032. Singapore is no different. The exit dates are all known, and the like for like replacements are all scheduled in for the rest of next decade. These guys can then successfully plan years out and they can budget accurately.

So much upside in such fleet planning. So many efficiencies. It’s nothing but a disorganised ballsup here. Is there a end date even confirmed for the 747 removal? Something that would normally be planned out a few years prior.

[Mk 1]

Is there a end date even confirmed for the 747 removal? Something that would normally be planned out a few years prior.

The just announced wing issues with the early A380's may be playing a part in further delays of the 744 retirement.

[Rated De]

It appears to all come down to poor fleet planning. Some plan and order their fleets like clockwork. You have Qatar as an example, who has their fleet plans outlined for the next two decades. They could tell you precisely what their fleet would be in the year 2032. Singapore is no different. The exit dates are all known, and the like for like replacements are all scheduled in for the rest of next decade. These guys can then successfully plan years out and they can budget accurately.

So much upside in such fleet planning. So many efficiencies. It’s nothing but a disorganised ballsup here. Is there a end date even confirmed for the 747 removal? Something that would normally be planned out a few years prior.

The fossil Leigh Clifford sat there straight faced last year stating it was the Qantas Sale Act 1992 stopping them re-equipping.
During the last few years with lower oil prices they have squandered over AUD $2.5 billion buying back shares, finding no other use for shareholder funds.
Apologists and useful idiots aside, most realise that there is strategy and a practical benefit for an airline to organise itself around its fleet. It is central to unit cost reduction and given the complexity and cost something that needs attention.

That they haven't is testament to a poor choice of CEO, one who prefers social discourse, ego gratification and personal enrichment.
The announced A380 issues have been known for a period yet Fort Fumble prefers to intervene in the posts of social media than plan, budget for and execute a fleet replacement strategy.

Qantas need a new fleet.

They desperately need leadership.

[dragon man]

Did I hear someone say spanner in the works?

[dragon man]

As I see it committing to another 10 years of what I think is fair to say is a fuel inefficient aircraft is a massive call IMO. YEs , you can hedge the fuel price but not that far out. Where will the oil price be in 8/10 years no one knows but I suspect higher than it is know and the price of a used 380 probably close to zero. Yes, Qantas needs a new fuel efficient fleet.

[PlasticFantastic]

Yes, I suppose if you ignore the single largest factor that contributes to Qantas holding aircraft for longer than its international competitors, then it is pretty easy to criticise its strategy.

Sadly, in the real world, the ATO has set a 20-year depreciation period for passenger aircraft, whereas other countries have much shorter periods. Qantas could write down half the value of every A380 it owns by scrapping them after 10 years (since there is almost no secondary market). But, unless each A380 is burning (say) 5-10m a year (depending on your depreciation method, and which year) fuel and other OPEX than an equivalent replacement (assuming a 200m actual purchase price), that'd be financially questionable move. And thats before considering revenue potential.
​​​​​​

​​

[Don Diego]

If actually running the Airline was the same priority as "politically correct statements" on social media then said Airline would much better off!!

[dragon man]

As far as depreciation goes the last 747 at retirement will only be 17 years old.

[knobbycobby]

What do Qatar, Singapore Airlines, Cathay or many others Airlines know about fleet replacement in advance?
This is completely stupid. Everyone knows each fleet renewal has nothing to do with improved Fuel consumption, enhanced product, increased range to fly new routes or less maintenance.
Every order hinges on pilot contracts. Have they not been paying attention!

[PlasticFantastic]

The announced A380 issues have been known for a period yet Fort Fumble prefers to intervene in the posts of social media than plan, budget for and execute a fleet replacement strategy.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/asias-older-a380s-subject-to-wing-spar-check-459561/

So, turns out Qantas has already checked two of their six affected A380s, and they are both fine. We should wait til all six are done before drawing any conclusions, but s far looking better for Qantas than for you on this point.

[dragon man]

Maybe you can explain how they could have done the inspections prior to Airbus releasing the requirement to do it on July 5?

[PlasticFantastic]

Presumably EASA, Airbus and the very small number of affected airlines have been talking about this for a little while, and EASA is satisfied that the checks Qantas did during scheduled maintenance, while the directive was being drafted and finalised, fully comply with the directive.

After all, the requirement is for prescribed checks to be undertaken before a particular date. Qantas and Airbus have under taken those checks, before that date. It'd be pointless for EASA to require them to undertake those same checks again.

The article says what it says. Figuring out how it likely happened isn't that hard, really...

[PPRuNeUser0198]

How is it known that the QF 380's are all leased?

[PlasticFantastic]

As far as depreciation goes the last 747 at retirement will only be 17 years old.
That's true, but Qantas wrote off the value of its 747 fleet, so hasn't benefitted from depreciation on that fleet for years.

[Rated De]

How is it known that the QF 380's are all leased?

Qantas owns all the A380, outright, hire purchase or finance leased.
(Source: Qantas Data book)

[Rated De]

That's true, but Qantas wrote off the value of its 747 fleet, so hasn't benefitted from depreciation on that fleet for years.

Actually yes they did as the 'loss' in FY15 from the CGU impairment of the 747 fleet, meant no corporate tax payable for the next few years, a gift that kept on giving.
The question remains that even with the inspection, what realisable value have these aircraft?
Qantas may be the one trick pony holding them on balance sheet at an unrealistic book value. Might be good to fool the staff again for another round of pay freezes, with such a 'confronting loss', then an 'amazing transformation' with well timed options for the insiders.


https://www.michaelwest.com.au/qantas-46-billion-zero-tax-neat-timing-caper/

[PPRuNeUser0198]

As far as depreciation goes the last 747 at retirement will only be 17 years old.

The depreciation schedule isn't that long. A debt-free asset on the balance sheet.

[Rated De]

The depreciation schedule isn't that long. A debt-free asset on the balance sheet.

Qantas use straight line depreciation for aircraft from 2.5-20 years, with a residual value between 0-10%

[dragon man]

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_PAD_19_116.pdf/PAD_19-116_1

This is a proposed AD issued on July 5 so how could Qantas have complied with it and sign off on it on two aircraft when it’s not yet in existence?

[C441]

This is a proposed AD issued on July 5 so how could Qantas have complied with it and sign off on it on two aircraft when it’s not yet in existence?
As I understand it, the issue has been known about for some time with no immediate ramifications on the fleets.
Qantas conducted inspections as a precaution as routine maintenance was carried out but the proposed AD, with the time-frame included, has only recently been published.
Qantas (and probably Singair and Emirates) had already inspected some of the affected aircraft, and those inspections met the requirements of the AD.

[dragon man]

How can they meet the requirements when there isn’t one and it doesn’t say how the inspection is to be done? I have never heard of retrospective signing off on an AD?

[tdracer]

How can they meet the requirements when there isn’t one and it doesn’t say how the inspection is to be done? I have never heard of retrospective signing off on an AD?


There are exceptions, but most of the time, an AD simply mandates an existing Service Bulletin (either airframer or engine). So if the existing SB has already been complied with, and the AD doesn't include any additional actions aside from what in the SB, then they could easily have already complied. It won't be official until the AD gets released (sometimes the released AD changes based on comments or new data), but it's not unreasonable for an operator to say they've already complied based on the preliminary version of the AD.
A primary reason for AD's is that Service Bulletins - even Alert SBs - are not mandatory So some operators don't bother unless it gets AD'ed.

[dragon man]

I believe there is not even a service bulletin issued yet so to me the question still remains valid.

[PlasticFantastic]

The first line of the required actions in the AD says "unless accomplished previously" - i.e. if an airline had already undertaken the required inspection (and any corrective action) then it isn't required to do so again, until the second inspection period falls due.

[On eyre]

The first line of the required actions in the AD says "unless accomplished previously" - i.e. if an airline had already undertaken the required inspection (and any corrective action) then it isn't required to do so again, until the second inspection period falls due.

With that I think you have slain the dragon 🤪🤪

[PlasticFantastic]

With that I think you have slain the dragon 🤪🤪
Do I get a maiden, or maybe Chairman's Lounge access for that?

[tdracer]

I believe there is not even a service bulletin issued yet so to me the question still remains valid.

Just because a SB hasn't been formally released doesn't mean it's not "out there". It's pretty much SOP to go out with a preliminary SB and have one or more operators 'try it' (frequently with airframer representatives assisting) to make sure it's correct and to incorporate any lessons learned into the final release.
Further, if a SB is going to be the subject of an AD, the release process once it's finalized takes much longer than for a routine S/B because the regulating authority has to review and approve everything. Routine SBs can be approved by a DER and the release takes a couple days - an AD'd SB approval takes weeks or months.
One of my biggest complaints about the process before I retired was that the greater the safety implications of a change, the longer it took to get it out to the field. The longest flow for a routine SB was actually drafting it up - once it was done I could review and sign it off and it was ready to release. If it was safety related and I expected it to be AD'd (which safety related stuff nearly always was), then I needed to create a cert plan (~week), get it approved by the Boeing Regulatory Authority (~2 weeks), which then forwarded it to the FAA for approval (~2 weeks), then after confirmation the FAA had approved the cert plan, I could "recommend approve" the SB (big No-No to sign the recommend approve before you had an approved cert plan) - after which it went the same route (with the same flow times) as the cert plan. And of course if something got rejected anywhere along the line, it was back to square one and start over again (I once had a 'recommend approve' rejected because under the affected models it said "747-SP" where as the TCDS says "747SP", and a Cert Plan rejected for EGT as an undefined acronym :ugh:).

[dragon man]

A380 officially rejected from Haneda by the Japanese, anyone know what plan B is?

[Rated De]

A380 officially rejected from Haneda by the Japanese, anyone know what plan B is?

Get involved in some social engineering, claim a death threat has been made, demand three billion corporate welfare, buy an airline with fleet older than yours or simply a fear, uncertainty and doubt campaign. After all is it contract season.

All far easier than actually planning for and running an airline.

[C441]

A380 officially rejected from Haneda by the Japanese, anyone know what plan B is?
Cancel the Haneda training in the current sim program?:8

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Another critical element to pressing the go button is achieving a deal with the carrier’s pilots. At present, cockpit crew cannot be on duty for longer than 20 hours, which is less than the 23 hours, including time before and after the flight, required for Sydney-London flights.

Regulators will need to be convinced crewing rosters will not lead to pilot fatigue and therefore be a threat to safety. “We are saying the current arrangement [with pilots] does not work so we need an efficiency change,” Joyce said.

“These aircraft will create a huge amount of promotions. A first officer typically is paid 55% of a captain’s salary and the biggest thing a pilot can want is growth of an airline.

“Sunrise means massive growth for us and it would create a very fast promotional opportunity for a lot of pilots. They have to look at how they will miss that opportunity if they don’t give the productivity needed on the aircraft.

“The best thing we can all do for the success of Qantas long term is to have a pilot agreement, the manufacturers to give the right price and do to this.

http://www.orientaviation.com/articles/4492/flying-into-the-sun (https://www.pprune.org/[url)

[dragon man]

In other words bend over no soap it’s for your own good just like the 787 contract. Yea, sure?

[knobbycobby]

Sorry who else does close to 24 hour Tours of Duty leaving at night? You’ll be up all day then do 23-24 hours at work to end up 12 hours out of your time zone in London.
Thats all you’ll do.
Strange that every other airline just orders aircraft.
Never seen pilot EAs as the stumbling block.
If you want to do something that’s currently not legal because it’s unsafe and illegal you can’t expect an exemption AND worse conditions to do more hazardous work.
Whats Alan and the executive team doing to get this over the line.
Not their multi million dollar bonuses.
He can go and shove it. Order it or don’t but stop crying wolf whilst you make billions and pay yourself millions.

[dragon man]

sorry who else does close to 24 hour tours of duty leaving at night? You’ll be up all day then do 23-24 hours at work to end up 12 hours out of your time zone in london.
Thats all you’ll do.
Strange that every other airline just orders aircraft.
Never seen pilot eas as the stumbling block.
If you want to do something that’s currently not legal because it’s unsafe and illegal you can’t expect an exemption and worse conditions to do more hazardous work.
Whats alan and the executive team doing to get this over the line.
Not their multi million dollar bonuses.
He can go and shove it. Order it or don’t but stop crying wolf whilst you make billions and pay yourself millions.

👍👍👍👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[Rated De]

Regulators will need to be convinced crewing rosters will not lead to pilot fatigue and therefore be a threat to safety. “We are saying the current arrangement [with pilots] does not work so we need an efficiency change,” Joyce said.

What precisely is not efficient Little Napoleon?
The current regulations limit TOD for reasons of health and safety.

Preceding any attempt to deem the process safe, a longitudinal study of extended duration would be needed to scientifically validate the safety or otherwise of extending TOD limits.
That no such study is proposed is a tell. Given the past President of AIPA enjoys his IR negotiator status, why not try the same thing again on another junior pilot with stars in his eyes?

A little implied threat here, bully there and use the media to harass employee groups and carry the message.
Something that the airline industry's most 'inclusive' leader excels at.

A 4 foot 10 inch bully.

[Maggie Island]

That no such study is proposed is a tell. Given the past President of AIPA enjoys his IR negotiator status, why not try the same thing again on another junior pilot with stars in his eyes



Didn’t QF parade around the fact that it had commenced some sort of super study with Monash university regarding ULH flying?

Not saying that AJs looking after anyone here, just want to know if theres any word from this??

[Don Diego]

Sign up quick boys and girls or you will lose the opportunity of the century.

[FightDeck]

The issue that Rated D mentions is that there is NO study of SYD/MEL flights leaving at night flying for 23 hour plus Tours of Duty to London.
A lot of the Monash study was on MEL-LAX a much shorter tour of duty, only 5 hours time zone change and both sectors left day time body clock.
Scientifically it’s not valid or of very poor validity.
No study has been done as it’s been considered to be unsafe, unwise and hence illegal.
Any study has to be of an equivalent tour of duty AND be long lasting. You may have to do it for many years.
Joyce shouldn’t be able to do it period. Let alone do it with worse protections for crews health.

[Rated De]

Didn’t QF parade around the fact that it had commenced some sort of super study with Monash university regarding ULH flying?

Not saying that AJs looking after anyone here, just want to know if theres any word from this??


The "study" to which you refer was in advance of the inaugural Perth London flight, during which data would be collected from "selected passengers".

Research design requires very specific sampling techniques.
This does not meet the benchmark.

A select group of passengers will wear medical research grade and clinically approved wearable devices that contain algorithms that record physical activity/sleep and posture changes. The devices will collect data throughout the entire flight.

Thus, one ought ask the University of Sydney about their research design, including how passengers were selected?
Also, in order to understand sample bias, it is pertinent to actually research before and after flight for an extended period.
Note that the crew are not included.

Note also that Little Napoleon wants longer TOD, yet it cannot be assumed that jet lag and long term health outcomes for operating crew are linear, they are not.


Qantas in "partnership" with the University is a simple code for "Qantas paid for this research"

As Sir Humphrey Appleby wisely lamented (paraphrasing) " One only has an enquiry, when it knows in advance what the answers will be"

https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/03/26/qantas-flight-heralds-second-stage-of-research-partnership.html

Qantas need a new fleet.

[Capt Fathom]

Qantas need a new fleet.
Qantas you need a new CEO!

[donpizmeov]

I have seen a study that showed medical diversion increased significantly when the sector length exceeded 13hrs. Airlines spend a lot of money on in-flight medical support to help prevent this where safe to do so. Being crammed in a can ain't a healthy way to live life.

[C441]

The "study" to which you refer was in advance of the inaugural Perth London flight, during which data would be collected from "selected passengers".
No, the 'study' to which Maggie Island and FightDeck refer is in fact a Monash university study conducted primarily on MEL-LAX-MEL and PER-LHR-PER flights initially amongst A380 and 787 Captains and F/O's and then amongst S/O's as well, collecting data from a few days before departure through to 3 or 4 days after return to their base. The data collected included sleep diary info, psychomotor testing at various stages of the duty and acti-graph data.

As has been alluded to before, this was a joint study with the support of AIPA.

The data collection was completed recently and is now being analysed. Whilst the hope is it will provide some significant recommendations useful to Sunrise planning, it was not exclusively designed with that in mind. Hopefully it will provide a range of recommendations for all of our ULR operations - including (among other things) appropriate crew complements for operations in excess of 20 hours…..

[Global Aviator]

I cannot believe the whining on here!

As I’ve stated repeatedly, I knew people who flew the original longest sector on the A340... The ones I knew loved it. Has anyone spoken to the current SQ drivers of EWR? No not 21/23 hours but very close.

Yet again Aussies wanting to recreate the wheel.

22 hours each way... 44 hours return... 2 trips a month...

Ahhhhh toooooooo much time at home will be the issue?

Seriously WTF!

[rep]

I cannot believe the whining on here!

As I’ve stated repeatedly, I knew people who flew the original longest sector on the A340... The ones I knew loved it. Has anyone spoken to the current SQ drivers of EWR? No not 21/23 hours but very close.

Yet again Aussies wanting to recreate the wheel.

22 hours each way... 44 hours return... 2 trips a month...

Ahhhhh toooooooo much time at home will be the issue?

Seriously WTF!

I actually agree with you, but I think you will find the duty period will be closer to 24 hours, 48 hours round trip.

Thats 144 hours hours for 3 trips in 8 weeks. With divisors currently sitting around 140 - 150 hours, I would be quite happy with 3 trips every 8 weeks!

[dragon man]

I actually agree with you, but I think you will find the duty period will be closer to 24 hours, 48 hours round trip.

Thats 144 hours hours for 3 trips in 8 weeks. With divisors currently sitting around 140 - 150 hours, I would be quite happy with 3 trips every 8 weeks!

You don’t get paid for the duty period only scheduled block time.

[Capt Fathom]

Has anyone spoken to the current SQ drivers of EWR?
For the record, yes I have. And they absolutely hate it.

[Beer Baron]

Yep, I agree with Global Aviator. I’m glad some of the whingers on here don’t run the airline. I’d much rather see new aircraft bought to open up new and exclusive routes rather than sit back and watch other carriers do it so we can study them for a few years to achieve a study the Rated De would find satisfactory.

As C441 posted above and I have previously, there already is a study being conducted on our ULR pilots by experts with input from both Qantas and AIPA.

For people who go on and on about wanting a new fleet you are pretty quick to try and rubbish a plan for where such a fleet would be used.

[ConfigFull]

Yep, I agree with Global Aviator. I’m glad some of the whingers on here don’t run the airline. I’d much rather see new aircraft bought to open up new and exclusive routes rather than sit back and watch other carriers do it so we can study them for a few years to achieve a study the Rated De would find satisfactory.

As C441 posted above and I have previously, there already is a study being conducted on our ULR pilots by experts with input from both Qantas and AIPA.

For people who go on and on about wanting a new fleet you are pretty quick to try and rubbish a plan for where such a fleet would be used.

On what pay? 787!??

[Beer Baron]

On what pay? 787!??
Ahhhh.... Pay, the magical cure for fatigue.

[Rated De]

No, the 'study' to which Maggie Island and FightDeck refer is in fact a Monash university study conducted primarily on MEL-LAX-MEL and PER-LHR-PER flights initially amongst A380 and 787 Captains and F/O's and then amongst S/O's as well, collecting data from a few days before departure through to 3 or 4 days after return to their base. The data collected included sleep diary info, psychomotor testing at various stages of the duty and acti-graph data.

As has been alluded to before, this was a joint study with the support of AIPA.

The data collection was completed recently and is now being analysed. Whilst the hope is it will provide some significant recommendations useful to Sunrise planning, it was not exclusively designed with that in mind. Hopefully it will provide a range of recommendations for all of our ULR operations - including (among other things) appropriate crew complements for operations in excess of 20 hours…..

How wide is the sample?
How many observations?
Of what duration is the longitudinal study?
Does AIPA have a statistician?

The problem obvious to anyone familiar with statistical modelling, is any attempt to model/extrapolate from a short duration small sample size "study" is that any result has very limited inference.
Incorrectly specifying the representative sample, too few people in the sample, too few observations for too short a period means the "results" have little application other than as a consulting project.
If health outcomes are what is being "modelled" then this sort of falls well short of benchmark statistical models. Health effects on crew are not linear.

Meaningful inferences are difficult to draw with a limited sample size, few observations and only making observations on a short term basis.
As fatigue is cumulative this "research" ignores the benefit of long term repeated observation.

It looks far more like a consulting project, rather than solid research design.

If the airline and "representatives" really want more solid data, the study would be involve far more observations. Simply put the health outcomes need monitoring for an extended period.

Out of interest, how many pilots and cabin crew does Qantas have Long term sick?
What are the most common diseases?
If the company and representatives really desire a robust study, they could study the long term health outcomes for their crew, versus those of the general population.
With a far larger sample size, years of data, and a general population with which to compare, statistical inferences would actually mean something.
This data exists in all airlines at present, for pilots and cabin crew, but perhaps health outcomes for those involved are not really the focus.

Ignoring the impact long term of cumulative fatigue, which according to the relevant literature is very important when considering long term health, the study itself (given its very short duration) ignores perhaps the most important correlated risk factor for health outcomes: deprivation of quality sleep for extended periods.

Qantas needed a new fleet a long time ago.

Management have no trouble committing billions to JQ fleet renewal, why all the fuss for the parent?

[ConfigFull]

Ahhhh.... Pay, the magical cure for fatigue.

You naive fool. Answer the question - are you willing to do ULH for 30% less? Welcome to the 787.

[FightDeck]

For the record, yes I have. And they absolutely hate it.

Agree entirely.
Also the SIN A350 crews that currently fly this sector do very few of them. Some don’t do any.
They have lots of short range destinations in Asia such as KUL,BKK,HND,HKG and Jakarta. Mumbai in India.
Lots to Australia PER,ADL,MEL,BNE and NZ AKL CHC.
Shorter stuff to Europe Like Moscow and A bit more to Spain BCN, Rome, AMS

So it’s nothing like doing exclusively 23 hours back of the clock 12 time zones out with project all night in Qantas.
Ultra range flights(Shorter than Sunrise) are only around 1/20th of Singapores route structure as opposed to 100% for QF.

Not anti the aircraft however what Qantas want to do will be hard flying on the body. If you think 23 hour work days leaving at night is easy then your viewpoint disagrees with the science otherwise it would be legal. Regardless No one has flown it so anyone that says it’s easy is full of S$&*.
If your potentially flying this kind of operation for many years consecutively, potentially to 65 and beyond it needs to be safe and sustainable. I believe CASA are of the viewpoint it’s not safe as other countries don’t allow it. They also won’t allow common endorsements with A330 or 787 so you won’t be able to mix the flying.

[Global Aviator]

Ok go back to my other point, as yes it’s a different world now.

The original longest route by SQ on the A340, a lot of expat guys in the grand days.

Now ask them if they liked it, I think and I maybe wrong but they were pretty much exclusively on that route. The biggest issue was landing recency.

If you mix in other flying then my theory of minimal work does not add up.

However in saying that even with FRMS, new studies, blah blah blah, your FDP will no doubt be more favourable than other regions.

Yes to clarify I have not spoken to any of the current 350 drivers.

What would be interesting would be to see an SQ ULH rooster, now EK that’s a different bowl of fish...

[Vindiesel]

you won’t be able to mix the flying.




You sure about that?

[FightDeck]

From what I’ve heard CASA will not allow mixed fleet flying and it is very unlikely.
Regardless as it stands currently sunrise is planed to fly 23 hour TOD departing Australia at night.
That’s what is proposed and must be sustainable and safe.
From many accounts the aircraft may not be operationally capable of doing it anyway.

[Vindiesel]

From what I’ve heard CASA will not allow mixed fleet flying and it is very unlikely.
Regardless as it stands currently sunrise is planed to fly 23 hour TOD departing Australia at night..


Can you post the departure times?

[FightDeck]

The AIPA draft figures I sighted had around 8pm departure time in SYD/MEL to make the QF1 morning slot into London.
Approx 23 plus duty hours. All night.

[Vindiesel]

The AIPA draft figures I sighted had around 8pm departure time in SYD/MEL to make the QF1 morning slot into London.
Approx 23 plus duty hours. All night.


I'd say you're overshooting by a good 1-1.5 hours on that duty time.

[FightDeck]

Suppose we will just have to wait and see when it’s published. That’s if the aircraft can make it.
What I’ve seen it was close to 23 hours duty.

[Troo believer]

You naive fool. Answer the question - are you willing to do ULH for 30% less? Welcome to the 787.
yep,
easiest job I’ve ever had. Way less stressful than short haul and way less fatiguing.

[Rated De]

Not anti the aircraft however what Qantas want to do will be hard flying on the body. If you think 23 hour work days leaving at night is easy then your viewpoint disagrees with the science otherwise it would be legal. Regardless No one has flown it so anyone that says it’s easy is full of S$&*. If your (sic) potentially flying this kind of operation for many years consecutively, potentially to 65 and beyond it needs to be safe and sustainable. I believe CASA are of the viewpoint it’s not safe as other countries don’t allow it.

The duty of care ought be foremost in the minds of both the airline and the AIPA, after it is a statutory requirement.
It is not as any such study fails to meet benchmarks for established statistical modelling.

Instead, Little Napoleon stresses "efficiencies" need to advance by the pilots, otherwise, ever the one trick pony, the aircraft go somewhere else.

Such TOD extensions may not meet with member state approvals.

Aircraft capability may limit the operation, but health outcomes over the long term ought be the prime focus. They are not as the study is not long of sufficient size or duration from which any meaningful inference can be drawn.

[Capt Fathom]

There are too many bonuses at stake. Joyce will get his way.

[Global Aviator]

Seriously cry me a river.........

QF need a new fleet... ok here’s a new fleet idea with a new route... Hang on no as pilots we don’t want that cause it’s never been done before. Ahhh if Wilbur and Orville had that thought.

Yes it’s going to be a tough duty, no I’ve never done ULH nor do I really want to. However push vote standup for a roster that says that’s all you do and I reckon the doors will be knocked down.

Grab the SQ roster for EWR, although as stated very different FDP, but let’s have a look.

A mate of mine once said, what’s the diff between a pilot and a whining dog? Yep eventually the dog will stop whining! Yes he knew he was one of them (as we all are).

Now what will the crew complement be? 2 Capt, 2 FO? SO? Whatever it will be will be overkill as that’s no doubt what you will demand, but seriously stop harping on about this. It will happen if the aircraft can do it so get over it and make it work for you.

Rant over... for now!

[donpizmeov]

“Yes it’s going to be a tough duty, no I’ve never done ULH nor do I really want to. However ...”

Mate of mine said some pilots can't help themselves arguing about things they have no idea about.

[Rated De]

Seriously cry me a river.........

QF need a new fleet... ok here’s a new fleet idea with a new route... Hang on no as pilots we don’t want that cause it’s never been done before. Ahhh if Wilbur and Orville had that thought.

Yes it’s going to be a tough duty, no I’ve never done ULH nor do I really want to. However push vote standup for a roster that says that’s all you do and I reckon the doors will be knocked down.

Grab the SQ roster for EWR, although as stated very different FDP, but let’s have a look.

A mate of mine once said, what’s the diff between a pilot and a whining dog? Yep eventually the dog will stop whining! Yes he knew he was one of them (as we all are).

Now what will the crew complement be? 2 Capt, 2 FO? SO? Whatever it will be will be overkill as that’s no doubt what you will demand, but seriously stop harping on about this. It will happen if the aircraft can do it so get over it and make it work for you.

Rant over... for now!



If the science supports it, then fantastic.
That they need a new fleet is axiomatic.

The "study" they propose does not meet established benchmarks.
Shiny metal jet syndrome is a well known, successful yet unstudied phenomena too..

Mate of mine said some pilots can't help themselves arguing about things they have no idea about.

That is precisely the point, nobody really knows the health effects of extending beyond current limits which are limits for a reason.
Ought not crew health be first and foremost? A longitudinal study of sufficient duration with sufficient sample size would provide an idea of what is presently unknown.

[C441]

Now what will the crew complement be? 2 Capt, 2 FO? SO? Whatever it will be will be overkill…...
That is not correct Global.
At the moment the proposed crew complement is that currently used; 1 Captain, 1 F/O and 2 S/Os. SQ used 2 Captains and 2 F/Os.
The significance of this is that for one crewmember to rest in the latter part of the cruise, the other front seat pilot will have been in the seat for 4 or 5 hours prior to commencing the approach, having had probably 3 rest breaks comprising maybe two continuous periods of sleep of 3 to 4 hours at best. If the suggested ETD is that mentioned previously, the crew may not have slept 'normally' in a convention bed for around 36 hours. That sounds adequate if your at home and going to spend a day doing whatever you do, but not if your are required to be adequately rested for an approach that is routine most days but potentially challenging on others.

It's not that the pilots don't want to do these trips, it's that they want scientifically based information and an appropriate crew complement to ensure that they are able to operate it safely with the minimum impact on their health.

They also believe there are significant efficiencies by the very nature of the operation without, for example, intervening layovers and the associated costs, that further efficiencies sought by the company are unnecessary given the huge efficiencies gained with the 787 award.

[Street garbage]

I wouldn't give Global Aviator too much oxygen people, they are just looking for someone to blame for when they shelve the whole project..blame the pilots, it's EBA time. His opening line.."it's an idea" ...sums up Qantas management "strategy" (LMAO) of the last decade..an idea like Red Roo, Jetstar HK, etc etc. When due process occurs with those "ideas"..how many a/c have we ordered in that time frame people??

[patty50]

The sunrise pilots won’t be the first humans to spend 24 hours at work.

NSW firefighters do 24 on 24 off 24 on 5 days off and it sure seems popular. A lot more days at home than a short haul pilot.


https://amp.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nsw-firefighters-working-24hour-shifts-and-theyre-loving-it-20150915-gjn1sk.html

[Mitch Vernon]

I too work 24 hour shifts at a Central Queensland Helicopter Rescue base.

Like the NSW firefighters, I get to sleep at work. In a proper bed, at sealevel. Not in a big long tube at 36000 feet with a lot of ambient noise. The quality of sleep would be questionable.

We have a 15 minute response time during the day, therefore must be awake. Then being called out at midnight for a 5 - 6 hour task is hard work. Even though I may have had a few hours sleep. I have gone offline due to fatigue with plenty of "duty hours" remaining. Because I felt I was a danger to myself and the crew. Probably don't have that luxury at 36000 feet.

[Rated De]

I too work 24 hour shifts at a Central Queensland Helicopter Rescue base.

Like the NSW firefighters, I get to sleep at work. In a proper bed, at sealevel. Not in a big long tube at 36000 feet with a lot of ambient noise. The quality of sleep would be questionable.

We have a 15 minute response time during the day, therefore must be awake. Then being called out at midnight for a 5 - 6 hour task is hard work. Even though I may have had a few hours sleep. I have gone offline due to fatigue with plenty of "duty hours" remaining. Because I felt I was a danger to myself and the crew. Probably don't have that luxury at 36000 feet.

Thank you Mitch for giving context to the debate.

The effects on long term health are unknown-unknowns at 36,000'.
The effects of long term repeated exposure are also unknown.

Qantas need new aircraft, they need a direction that isn't inward looking, solely focused on unit cost reductions.

[FightDeck]

Yes it’s going to be a tough duty, no I’ve never done ULH nor do I really want to.





Zero experience and zero science. Expert opinion. Not.

[OnceBitten]

Aipa shouldn't even begin negotiations on project sunrise unless the first thing put on the table from the company is 2 Capt, 2 F/o's as minimum crew.

[Global Aviator]

I was surprised to read it won’t be 2 Capt & 2 FO, next they will push to make crew rest in the bunk not count like a sandy airline.....

So that is my point fight for what you want and you can’t tell me that only doing the 3 ULH in the bid period (as mentioned above) would not be fantastic.

Mix in Asia’s with ULH and I agree it would not be nice!

[73qanda]

It would be pretty tough being the only Captain if it was a challenging flight. Most flights.....routine, once or twice a year it seems that if something can go wrong it will. On those rare flights I think I would burn out mentally prior to TOD!

[Tom/PER]

Apologies as I haven't read this thread in it's entirety, but I flew QF10 last year not long after the route launched and whilst waiting to clear immigration in Perth, the flight crew caught up with the mainstream pax which consisted of 1 Capt, 1 FO and 2 SO's, absolutely no disrespect to the drivers up front but that surprised me a little for an ULH.

[Capt Fathom]

It doesn’t matter if there is 1 Capt or 4 Capts. Only one of them is the PIC for the whole flight. I doubt changing the makeup of the 4 crew is going to change the fatigue levels.

[Seaview2]

Okay bear with me. Was thinking a while ago how to do this flight and can only really come up with one way which is a bit outside the box but then again so is all of the Sunrise stuff. So thought I’d share it on here after reading the previous posts if only for another point of view.
Doubt we will see 2 Cpts and 2 F/Os on Qantas ULH. My theory here involves 1 Cpt 2 F/Os and 2 S/Os which would be a similar cost and in my opinion safer as much less time will be spent on the deck vs 4 pilot and it gives the ability to plan long breaks and more beneficial sleep periods much better.

Re dealing with the regulator and the pilots association. At the moment the longest planned flight deck time allowed is 8.5 hours in Qf Long Haul. Running Sunrise 4 pilot smashes that out of the park. What I propose keeps it reasonably close whilst still being reasonably cost effective especially vs 2 Cpts 2 F/Os.

There must always be at least one pilot with a command endorsement on the flight deck at any one time. At the moment a Cpt and F/O (Long Haul) in Qantas hold that endorsement. S/O does not. As such always need a Cpt or F/O on the flight deck.

Also one of the most challenging things about this flight will be the fatigue in the second half and maintaining concentration. The below roster would ensure that towards the end of the flight there is always one pilot who has been on the flight deck for a period longer than the other so someone is always in the “loop” rather than just having the crew both swap at the same time. Also towards the end of the flight the rest/change over periods are shorter so less risk of errors due to the fatigue of long stints at the controls involving controlled rest etc. Doing it this way ensures there is a fresh crew member is at the controls on average every 2.8 hours (with longer breaks at the start and shorter toward the end).

The last comment that I would make is for this to work everyone would need to know their role beforehand and turn up for work accordingly. More about that later.

The following assumes:
22hr flight time. 30 min taxi.
1 hr report. 0.5 hr stand down for 24 hr tour of duty. It can be pretty easily adjusted if required depending on the flight time. But in this example:
TOD 24 hrs
Off blocks 22.5hrs

Captain (obviously there for takeoff and landing) = C1
Take Off and Landing First Officer = F1
Cruise First Officer = F2
Second Officers = S1 & S2

Roster as follows:
C1 & F1
Taxi (20mins) and first 2:40hrs for total 3hrs in seat. (All times below are time in flight deck seat).
C1 or F1 (most tired goes off) & S1
4hrs
F2 & S1
3.5hrs
F2 & S2
3.5hrs
C1 or F1 who went on break first & S2
3.5hrs
C1 or F1 who went on break first & S1
0.5hrs
F2 & S1
1hr
F2 & S2
1-1.5hrs (F2) 1.5hrs (S2)
C1 & F1 One comes back before the other so both not swapping together at their discretion.
2-2.5hrs (C1) 2-2.5hrs (F1) including 10 minute taxi.

Total time in seat:
C1 9-9.5hrs
F1 9-9.5hrs
F2 9-9.5hrs
S1 9hrs
S2 8.5hrs

Longest break in order to get a normal sleep period:
C1: 11hrs or 13hrs depending on 1st or 2nd break taken.
F1: 11hrs or 13hrs depending on 1st or 2nd break taken.
F2: 7 hours at start. 4 hours in middle. More broken as not doing takeoff or landing. Doesn’t drink coffee before flight and knows to turn up to work ready to sleep.
S1: 7 hrs.
S2: 10.5 hrs. Also doesn’t drink coffee before the flight and know to turn up to work ready to sleep.

Total time off each approx at least 13 hrs.

For this to work the roles would need to be designated before the flight with a schedule written similar to what other ULR operators do. The Captain and FO should figure out before the flight who wants to go off first so they know how tired to be at the beginning of the duty. That way everyone knows how to plan their rest.

This is the only way I can see which Sunrise can be crewed. 4 pilot just has everyone in the seat too long with too many broken breaks especially with 1 Cpt 1 F/O and 2 S/Os. 5 crew is complicated but not impossible. Easy spreadsheet app for the iPad and could be adapted slightly on the day depending on flight and departure times. It ensures that all the crew have had someone else on duty for a period when they get on duty so someone is always in the loop and the take off and landing pilots both have a big stretch off to get a proper sleep like in a normal 24 hour period. Hopefully this would satisfy the regulator and the AIPA. Also in the event of a medical diversion there is better opportunities to extend and get still have adequate rest.

Lastly yes this would add slightly more weight needing 3 crew rest areas but as the holds will not have much more than pax bags in them there will be plenty of space considering the size of the jet so perhaps creative use of this space for a crew rest area which doesn’t add much more weight than a 2 crew rest could be devised.

[OnceBitten]

It doesn’t matter if there is 1 Capt or 4 Capts. Only one of them is the PIC for the whole flight. I doubt changing the makeup of the 4 crew is going to change the fatigue levels.

Actually it does matter.
The crew should consist of a Capt + F/O operating and a Capt + F/O augmenting and should be rostered as such. The rolls are reversed on the return sector allowing the Augmenting crew of the first sector to be the operating of the second and vis versa. So different PIC for each individual sector. Upside being planning rest for the duty both prior to the pattern and during and also promotional opportunities, downside obviously will be recency issues and CRM with 2 Capt on the flight deck.

[dragon man]

1 Capt, 2 FOs, 3 SOs, 4 individual crew bunks with one on the flight deck plus a crew toilet on the flight deck. Remember from getting into the shower at home to getting to a hotel in London will be near 27 hours.

[Rated De]

1 Capt, 2 FOs, 3 SOs, 4 individual crew bunks with one on the flight deck plus a crew toilet on the flight deck. Remember from getting into the shower at home to getting to a hotel in London will be near 27 hours.

Untried, untested and without the science to support it Little Napoleon will shriek that it is the pilots who again need to make concessions, otherwise the one trick pony will bull and threaten.

[Blueskymine]

I think you’ll find a trip of these distances will require a take off and landing crew, plus crew augmentation​​​​​.

You’ll probably find it will end up being a takeoff and landing crew plus cruise relief. So 2 x SOs. One assigned to the the takeoff crew, one assigned to the the landing crew.

[novice110]

Considering that :

Being awake for about 17 hours has a similar effect on performance as a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05 https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/fatigue/index.html

What happens on such a long flight when a crew member can't sleep ? What happens on current long haul flights if you can't sleep ?

[Capt Fathom]

Joyce wants to keep the current crewing arrangement and extend the ToD out to 22-24 hours, ie. get the rules changed.
Thoughts of 5 or 6 flight crew and 4 bunks is a pipe dream.
The saving grace for passengers and crew is Airbus and Boeing may not be able to deliver the aircraft Qantas Joyce wants as his swan song!

[dragon man]

Joyce wants to keep the current crewing arrangement and extend the ToD out to 22-24 hours, ie. get the rules changed.
Thoughts of 5 or 6 flight crew and 4 bunks is a pipe dream.
The saving grace for passengers and crew is Airbus and Boeing may not be able to deliver the aircraft Qantas Joyce wants as his swan song!

Why should it be a pipe dream?

[73qanda]

Yeah I don’t get why it should be a pipe dream. Surely the current agreement doesn’t allow for it even if the refs were to change?

[Blueskymine]

Everything is negotiable for a price.

[knobbycobby]

Has anyone ever departed the East coast at night and flown for close to 24 hours?
How did they feel landing the aircraft in the dark, windy and rainy London weather after a circa 24 hour duty?
JFK I was told had a 3 hour tempo a few days ago with the usual Summer CBs.
What if it’s turbulent during your rest breaks and the seat belt sign is off/on. It’s not uncommon and you can’t sleep.
As the wise gentleman from the Fire Dept made comment doing long shifts. They get rest in a proper bed at sea level that’s not subject to noise/turbulence or low humidity.
Too many assumptions made and no like for like science or data.

[maggot]

Wots a three hour tempo

[Mark Altstar]

How about, if you don’t like the idea of doing ULR flying, don’t bid onto the aircraft?
If you think the job will be untenable, keep doing something else.
If you’re busy trying to save your colleagues from themselves, how about sitting back and observing how it goes for a while before you convince yourself your opinion is the same as everybody else.
Some people will love the type of flying that will be on offer and others will hate it. If you think you’d hate it, simply don’t bid for it. A lot of the same comments were made prior to 787 doing Perth to London on the 787 and you don’t hear the 787 crowd bleating about that operation. From what I can see they are the most content Fleet in the Airline.
If you don’t want to do the flying and you are concerned that it will affect your colleagues health, perhaps tell your colleagues to go to the gym and think about what they eat and drink on the job.
It’s horses for courses and if you don’t like the course, stick to the track you’re on but don’t get pi55y pants and try to close down the race. The operation will need an excellent crew rest and a lot of thought about crew complement and I hope it succeeds and like the 787 long range flying, proves the naysayers wrong.

[Rated De]

How about, if you don’t like the idea of doing ULR flying, don’t bid onto the aircraft?
If you think the job will be untenable, keep doing something else.
If you’re busy trying to save your colleagues from themselves, how about sitting back and observing how it goes for a while before you convince yourself your opinion is the same as everybody else.
Some people will love the type of flying that will be on offer and others will hate it. If you think you’d hate it, simply don’t bid for it. A lot of the same comments were made prior to 787 doing Perth to London on the 787 and you don’t hear the 787 crowd bleating about that operation. From what I can see they are the most content Fleet in the Airline.
If you don’t want to do the flying and you are concerned that it will affect your colleagues health, perhaps tell your colleagues to go to the gym and think about what they eat and drink on the job.
It’s horses for courses and if you don’t like the course, stick to the track you’re on but don’t get pi55y pants and try to close down the race. The operation will need an excellent crew rest and a lot of thought about crew complement and I hope it succeeds and like the 787 long range flying, proves the naysayers wrong.

Perhaps if the science (which does not exist) supported it, then fantastic.
A statutory duty of care is just that and it relates to a safe workplace.
The proposed "study" is simply not scientific and serves only to window dress legitimate health concerns.

[FightDeck]

The 787 does not exclusively fly PER-LHR so poor comparison. It’s not comparable to SYD/MEL to London.
Agree with Rated D. The science and data have to make sure that this is acceptable and safe rather than just hearsay that some one flew PER-LHR once on the 787, therefore flying anything significantly longer is acceptable/sustainable.
Anecdotes from Pilot isn’t science.
Suspect we won’t have to worry about sunrise anyway for some time. Talk is that Boeing are not interested for 12 aircraft. The ME carriers buying over 200 of the 777X may have something to do with it.
The A350 is also looking like it will struggle to make the distance with the payload required by QF. Sure they will blame pilots rather than have egg on their face but who cares.
A380s looking to be slowly replaced from 2022-23 with the new type regardless.

[dragon man]

The 787 does not exclusively fly PER-LHR so poor comparison. It’s not comparable to SYD/MEL to London.
Agree with Rated D. The science and data have to make sure that this is acceptable and safe rather than just hearsay that some one flew PER-LHR once on the 787, therefore flying anything significantly longer is acceptable/sustainable.
Anecdotes from Pilot isn’t science.
Suspect we won’t have to worry about sunrise anyway for some time. Talk is that Boeing are not interested for 12 aircraft. The ME carriers buying over 200 of the 777X may have something to do with it.
The A350 is also looking like it will struggle to make the distance with the payload required by QF. Sure they will blame pilots rather than have egg on their face but who cares.
A380s looking to be slowly replaced from 2022-23 with the new type regardless.

Agree with all above except about the 380s unless there is a dramatic increase in fuel they are here for another ten years. The refurbishment plus Joyce said it in an interview in the last two months.

[Australopithecus]

Boeing is now saying that the first test flight of the 777X won't be for about six months. The GE-9X has problems that apparently mean a redesign of some stator vanes. Any realistic test program means first deliveries mid-late 2021. Since we haven’t ordered yet, how could we get a delivery In the next five years?

[Mark Altstar]

380s won’t be going in 5 years when they are doing the 12 yearly heavy check on all frames and pumping 400M into cabin reconfig. Unless there is an extreme fuel spike.

[Rated De]

380s won’t be going in 5 years when they are doing the 12 yearly heavy check on all frames and pumping 400M into cabin reconfig. Unless there is an extreme fuel spike.


The A380 is an inherited problem for Little Napoleon.
The industry and manufacturers guessed that slot constrained hubs would be the natural market for the A380.
Instead of what appeared a logical "fix" the market prefers, at least in the present, more of the point to point with lower passenger counts.
That Qantas is stuck with the A380 on the books for considerably more than the second hand market is an issue that increasingly analysts will ask questions of. This was vast majority of the "confronting loss" in FY15: Impairment of Long haul fleet.

Problematic for the rudderless ship is that irrespective of the the fuel price, the A380 fleet burns far more fuel per seat.
In part this is why smart operators have already moved to replace increasing numbers of four engine aircraft with long range twin engined aircraft.

This is what the ICCT were highlighting.

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

Qantas need a new fleet.

[FightDeck]

The newest 747s are 2003/2004 models. Thats only 4 years younger than the A380s.
The 767s had D checks and full cabin reconfigurations then shortly after retired.
Like wise the 747s had D checks then retired.
Joyce has said publicly that the sunrise type will or could replace the A380 from 2023. Going on the 747 retirement add 4 years to the A380 and that’s exactly 2023 in line with Alan’s Comments.
Just as the 787 has and will replace the 747.

[tdracer]

Boeing is now saying that the first test flight of the 777X won't be for about six months. The GE-9X has problems that apparently mean a redesign of some stator vanes. Any realistic test program means first deliveries mid-late 2021. Since we haven’t ordered yet, how could we get a delivery In the next five years?

I think you'll find some slots have just opened up for 777-200LR/300ER deliveries in the near term - at very good prices.

[Rated De]

I think you'll find some slots have just opened up for 777-200LR/300ER deliveries in the near term - at very good prices.

Yes but to Fort Fumble, the business case necessitates it flying all the way around the world, burning half the fuel of current options and carries 400 passengers, with robots who willingly work 24 hours straight.
Unless of course it happens to be fleet for Jetstar..

[Australopithecus]

I think you'll find some slots have just opened up for 777-200LR/300ER deliveries in the near term - at very good prices.

Yes, I'd expect that. I read they are making 3.5 a month-what’s the maximum rate of that line? Logistics aside, Qantas apparently is hanging its hat on ultra long haul flights for which they need an optimised 777-X type. I don’t think they could be made to see the sense in gettin' -300s while the gettin's good.

Meanwhile the fleet ages, and they will soon enough be needing an A330 replacement plan.

[tdracer]

Yes, I'd expect that. I read they are making 3.5 a month-what’s the maximum rate of that line? Logistics aside, Qantas apparently is hanging its hat on ultra long haul flights for which they need an optimised 777-X type. I don’t think they could be made to see the sense in gettin' -300s while the gettin's good.

Meanwhile the fleet ages, and they will soon enough be needing an A330 replacement plan.

The 777 line was at 8.3 a month a couple years ago - they slowed it down due to reduced demand for the -200/300 since most buyers are now waiting for the 777X. It'll take a while to get the 777X up to 7 or 8 a month once it's certified due to the learning curves involved. But they plan to keep making the current 777 as long as there is demand (particularly the 777F - while I expect they'll eventually offer a freighter version of the 777X, it'll be several years before it's available.
If it's range you need, the 777-200LR should fit the bill but it'll burn more fuel than the -8X.

[Asturias56]

Mr B has a lot on his mind right now - the Max, the problem getting the 777X first flight (now 2020), the tanker issues and of course do they launch the NMA .............

[Rated De]

Mr B has a lot on his mind right now - the Max, the problem getting the 777X first flight (now 2020), the tanker issues and of course do they launch the NMA .............

With the good folk at Boeing busy buying re-certification for the MAX and delaying the 777X, just who will Little Napoleon blame this time?
Ipso facto, these problems ought mean the order book at the other place is full to over flowing...

What to do what to do...
Industrial dispute anyone?

Qantas need a new fleet as much as they need "management"

[Capt Fathom]

The newest 747s are 2003/2004 models. Thats only 4 years younger than the A380s.
So if the A380’s came in 2007/8, that makes them 4years younger than the B747s.

[FightDeck]

Correct. My bad.
That should of read the A380s are only a few years younger than the 747 ERs that are soon going and replaced by 787s.

[Australopithecus]

The difference between the 747 and the 380 is that the 747 has some residual value while the 380 does not, except as parts. Air France has just announced they are quitting the 380 completely by 2022.

Question for accounting experts: How is the balance sheet affected when an asset is worthless yet still has ten years left on the depreciation schedule?

[Rated De]

The difference between the 747 and the 380 is that the 747 has some residual value while the 380 does not, except as parts. Air France has just announced they are quitting the 380 completely by 2022.

Question for accounting experts: How is the balance sheet affected when an asset is worthless yet still has ten years left on the depreciation schedule?





That is a fantastic question given the "confronting loss" in FY15. Over $2.6 billion of the "loss" was accounting loss as the long haul fleet was "impaired". What this means is that the "judgement" is that the book value of the asset exceeds the asset value that can realised if sold.
That many analysts asked questions of the book value prior to the "loss" is because the book values were considered not realistic.

Thus, specifically under AASB 136 the impairment becomes a judgement combining accounting treatments and valuation assessments. A bit of nudge-nudge wink-wink between the big 4 auditors and "executive management" helps with the timing. It was really lucky that the "impairment" in FY15 was the year before the recovery at which time millions of management share options vested.

To answer the question, ASIC has some concerns about asset impairment.

While there are many judgmental areas involved in impairment testing, if the asset is considered to be impaired because the value recognised on the balance sheet cannot be recovered that impairment loss must be recognised at the time it is identified.

With regulators and auditors likely all members of the Chairman's lounge, it is something that "isn't recognised" until a more convenient time.

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair,


"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (perks) depends upon his not understanding it!"

[Don Diego]

Blind Freddy can see the failure that has been the 380, creative accounting will, however, save the day.

[Rated De]

Here Little Napoleon.
In the big world of aviation, Airline CEOs spend their time on fleet economics, not social discourse.
Perhaps you could call up an airline CEO like Air France-KLM CEO Ben Smith and ask what to do..

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2019/08/06/air-france-a380-problems/

[dragon man]

The only thing wrong with that article is you could change AirFrance to Qantas and the reasons are the same.

[PlasticFantastic]

Are they? Qantas flies the A380 to and from a number of congested airports (SYD, LHR, HKG etc) and on routes where its range and payload are important (DFW, potentially SCL and JNB once the 747s go, although I think 787s or 777X/A350 would be better for the last two), and where frequency is less important than arrival and departure timing (anything trans Pacific or to Europe). The markets it operates in are also quite different to the European market, which is highly fragmented given the number of airlines and hubs available to travellers with only a short connection, killing any revenue premium for most airlines - Qantas dominates Transpacific, and is P2P to HKG, and is increasingly locking in premium traffic from Australia which can fill a large number of premium seats that attract a revenue premium.

Yes, QF will need to retire the A380 and replace it with more efficient twin engine planes. I'm not arguing against that. But, I don't think that the argument that the economics of Air France and Qantas are the same, in respect of the A380, is right at all. I'd expect Qantas to be one of the later airlines to retire the A380.

[dragon man]

Let’s see, Heathrow they have 4 slots available but two are leased out. Dallas it flys home with about 100/120 empty seats, reliability I think about the same or worse than AF probably, disruptions due to breakdowns are diabolical because they have no spare aircraft and they can’t put 480 people on another flight it’s just to many people. When they work they punters love them , for the people at the coal face they are a nightmare.

[Chris2303]

Given that two separate A380s have gone mechanical in the past week, I'd say that AF have it about right

[Going Boeing]

Unfortunately, at some airports such as LAX, the A380 does nothing for arrival/departure congestion. Following the wake turbulence event over the North Arabian sea involving an Emirates A380, ATC in the US applies an increased separation compared - ie, it is double the spacing between other wide bodies & thus it takes up two arrival or departure slots resulting in no savings. The only saving being for parking bays at the terminal.

[Rated De]

Little Napoleon is worried...Airlines might actually have taxes levied for pollution.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7333141/Qantas-boss-Alan-Joyce-warns-climate-change-panic-devastate-industry.html#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

Qantas need a new fleet.

[PlasticFantastic]

Little Napoleon is worried...Airlines might actually have taxes levied for pollution.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7333141/Qantas-boss-Alan-Joyce-warns-climate-change-panic-devastate-industry.html#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

Qantas need a new fleet.
Rated, the kinds of taxes quoted in the article (flat per-passenger taxes by travel class, in France and the Netherlands) would give Qantas a competitive advantage, and have absolutely no bearing on the fuel efficiency of an airline's fleet.

So, no, Joyce isn't worried about the impact on Qantas; his point is about whether there is much point in taxing airlines when there is usually no substitute to flying (e.g. high speed rail is good over shorter distances, but that's about it). And, these taxes have absolutely no bearing on whether Qantas should or shouldn't get a new fleet.

[Rated De]

And, these taxes have absolutely no bearing on whether Qantas should or shouldn't get a new fleet.

The ICAO ETS is only on International services. CORSIA requires as of CY2019 airlines report pollution metrics. Member states can set their own ETS for domestic operations. This has been done in Europe. Taxation of output could be the next step, this is what is being signalled. This has airline management concerned.

"Excess emissions" charged at the customer interface combined with the growing spectre of flight shaming, as alluded to by Little Napoleon, are the concern. Fleet choices (particularly as it relates to type and configuration) might see a per passenger emissions charge highlight exactly which airlines have "game changed" and those who are busy creating project names or social discourse.

[dragon man]

In simple English I think you are saying that what the progressives are lecturing the deplorables about might be about to come back and bite then on the back side. Also if they tax on the basis of emissions per sector length per person and that would spell trouble for Syd direct JFK and Heathrow.

[Rated De]

In simple English I think you are saying that what the progressives are lecturing the deplorables about might be about to come back and bite then on the back side. Also if they tax on the basis of emissions per sector length per person and that would spell trouble for Syd direct JFK and Heathrow.


That sums it up.
The regulator had a little conference back in May, discussing what the likely member state responses might be..
A per passenger tax isn't a concern, but taxes levied in other ways would highlight precisely why Little Napoleon is concerned with "flight shaming" as some fleets pollute more than others....

[kiwi grey]

No B777-8 for "Operation Sunrise"?
According to the usually-reliable Jon Ostrower (here: https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/boeing-mothballing-development-of-ultra-long-range-777-8-777x/) "Boeing is freezing efforts to develop an ultra-long range follow on to the 777-9", i.e. the 777-8

Awkward

[Rated De]

No B777-8 for "Operation Sunrise"?
According to the usually-reliable Jon Ostrower (here: https://theaircurrent.com/aircraft-development/boeing-mothballing-development-of-ultra-long-range-777-8-777x/) "Boeing is freezing efforts to develop an ultra-long range follow on to the 777-9", i.e. the 777-8

Awkward

Imagine the joy when Little Napoleon wrote to Boeing about his ambitious plans for up to a dozen aircraft.
Given it is contract season for pilots and the daily rags have featured puff pieces about project "Bananarama" he will, true to form, blame either of or and some combination of the following:"

Pilots not taking pay cuts, to "meet the business case" (given the contribution of pilots to hourly operating costs is in the range of 3-6%) the business case must be VERY weak..
Blame the regulator for not, despite Chairman's lounge membership, permitting extended operating Tour of Duty.
The manufacturer, for not taking up the generous offer to absorb the fixed cost of development for maybe a dozen aircraft.
Some combination of all three previous points.

Likely there will be some further emissions from him some about some disastrous "conflageration" of events all pointing to the fact that the region's most highly remunerated airline CEO is not responsible.

[Chris2303]

Of course they may have to go Airbus if Boeing go under.

[Australopithecus]

Well, now they are going to have to get Airbus to increase the range on the 350, but why would Airbus bother for so few orders? Oh...forget any bargaining power too. This move by Boeing puts QF in an A350+Rolls-Royce corner if they insist on making Sunrise an actual thing.

[dragon man]

Well, now they are going to have to get Airbus to increase the range on the 350, but why would Airbus bother for so few orders? Oh...forget any bargaining power too. This move by Boeing puts QF in an A350+Rolls-Royce corner if they insist on making Sunrise an actual thing.

I can say one thing for sure it will be either the 350 or the 777.😂😂

[Australopithecus]

I can say one thing for sure it will be either the 350 or the 777.😂😂

Except that Boeing just announced they are not going to make the long range 777-8. So no, not so much with the 777

[Rated De]

In the cold light of reality, far away from Fort Fumble press releases, fanciful infomercial articles and TV appearances, project names and secret teams, what Qantas actually will have to do, is actually purchase an aircraft.

That aircraft is likely "off the shelf", already in operation with numerous airlines.
Much more fun to drive personal social agendas, interrupt societal discourse and lecture Rugby officialdom than actually spend time developing a fleet plan, funding and executing a deal.


Qantas need a new fleet.

[dragon man]

Delayed not cancelled.

We reviewed our development program schedule and the needsof our current 777X customers and decided to adjust theschedule," Boeing spokesman Paul Bergman said by e-mail, addingthat the manufacturer remained committed to the 777-8.

"The adjustment reduces risk in our development program,ensuring a more seamless transition to the 777-8. We continue toengage with our current and potential customers on how we canmeet their fleet needs. This includes our valued customerQantas."

[Australopithecus]

That Boeing wording is typical of a project that eventually dies. But even if it doesn’t, what do you reckon an indefinite delay does to certainty for customers?

[dragon man]

That Boeing wording is typical of a project that eventually dies. But even if it doesn’t, what do you reckon an indefinite delay does to certainty for customers?

Sorry you have lost me where did they say indefinite?

[PlasticFantastic]

Yeah, the Reuters article says that Boeing made an interim offer to Qantas (what was offered was not stated), to keep Boeing in the game for the Sunrise order despite the delay. So, Boeing appears to definitely planning for a delay, not a cancellation.

[Australopithecus]

Sorry you have lost me where did they say indefinite?

This from FlightGlobal

“The airframer gave no indication of how long the development will be put on hold for, and did not elaborate further when asked by FlightGlobal.”

By indefinite I meant that they didn’t nominate a date for further development on the -8. I am pretty sure they’ll make it, but their press statements seem to be aimed at the share market rather than the plane market.

Earlier in the thread mention was made of Boeing having a lot of 2020 delivery slots for current 777 models available. I don’t know what the current recession fears are doing to world fleet acquisition plans, but those slots aren’t selling. Perhaps all the current 777 operators have planned for and are waiting for the 777-9.

[kiwi grey]

That Boeing wording is typical of a project that eventually dies. But even if it doesn’t, what do you reckon an indefinite delay does to certainty for customers?

Like the 787-3
That was postponed, but definitely still coming .. until it wasn't. From "Real Soon Now" to "Dead" in the blink of a Boeing eye

[Australopithecus]

Like the 787-3
That was postponed, but definitely still coming .. until it wasn't. From "Real Soon Now" to "Dead" in the blink of a Boeing eye

...and the 380-900 and the 380F.

Oh well, GE is in the news today with allegations of a 38 Billion accounting fraud. That might be just short-selling hedge fund hijinks, but if it has legs then what happens to the GE9X redesign efforts?

[tdracer]

It's worth remembering Boeing did the exact same thing with the 777-200LR in the aftermath of 9/11. Development work was put on hold while cash and resources were tight. When things started to return to normal, work on the 777-200LR resumed and it was certified and delivered, it also became the basis for the 777F.
Boeing always saw the -200LR as a niche aircraft and new it wouldn't sell in the number that the 777-300ER did. Hence when things got tight, it got back burnered until things loosened up again.
I'd bet pretty good money that the 777-8 will make it into production - just not per the previous schedule.

[Maggie Island]

The flight global article states that theyve put a “compelling option” on the table for QF, any trumours as to what this could be???

[ruprecht]

The flight global article states that theyve put a “compelling option” on the table for QF, any trumours as to what this could be???

Yeah, buy the A350...

[Blueskymine]

Personally I think the 350 is the better option. However, it can’t hurt having both.

787/777 common type.

330/350 common type.

That would take a little vision however.

[dragon man]

What ever it is they will pay no more than 787 rates I’ll bet.

[Australopithecus]

....I'd bet pretty good money that the 777-8 will make it into production - just not per the previous schedule.

Yes, but in the meantime other operators are thinking about ULH, some are even rumoured to be eyeing Australia. If QF was to wait for the 777-8 which may be later cancelled they would surrender first mover advantage to a customer with the A350-1000ULR.

There isn’t a compelling reason for Boeing to do the -8 anytime soon. A -8F might be a different kettle of fish, but a freighter optimised MLW might be counter-productive for an ULH pax version. In any event the entire world demand for ULH can’t be 100 aircraft.

You know what this stuff costs-do you think the -8 engineering would be in the 150 million neighborhood, or am I still expecting to see 25¢ gasoline?

[wheels_down]

The 777x is $100m more to buy than the 350-1000 (tel:350-1000). Even with mates rates that’s big numbers for a carrier who is blowing all their savings on share buy backs.

[Maggie Island]

In any event the entire world demand for ULH can’t be 100 aircraft.


Whilst its hard to say what the appetite would be for ULH routes, the 778 has nearly notched 50 orders - it’s not difficult to imagine (especially on a delayed timescale) that there will be 100 firm orders down by the early/mid 20s.

[Australopithecus]

Whilst its hard to say what the appetite would be for ULH routes, the 778 has nearly notched 50 orders - it’s not difficult to imagine (especially on a delayed timescale) that there will be 100 firm orders down by the early/mid 20s.


53 orders, all from ME carriers, and almost all considered “soft”. QR wants to delay deliveries anyway, and the rest are likely convertible to the 777-9 given the route structures/payload profile from that region.

If the -8 was still a goer I could imagine another 40-60 orders, but that’s without Airbus' recently announced A350-1000ULR (or whatever it’s called).

Struggling to come up with 25 city pairs that would, with competition, require circa 100 aircraft.

ME to AKL
SYD to LHR
SYD to CDG
SYD to FRA
SYD to JFK
SIN TO JFK
PER TO LHR
YYZ TO SYD

where else?

[tdracer]

Yes, but in the meantime other operators are thinking about ULH, some are even rumoured to be eyeing Australia. If QF was to wait for the 777-8 which may be later cancelled they would surrender first mover advantage to a customer with the A350-1000ULR.

There isn’t a compelling reason for Boeing to do the -8 anytime soon. A -8F might be a different kettle of fish, but a freighter optimised MLW might be counter-productive for an ULH pax version. In any event the entire world demand for ULH can’t be 100 aircraft.

You know what this stuff costs-do you think the -8 engineering would be in the 150 million neighborhood, or am I still expecting to see 25¢ gasoline?

I expect the 777-8 to come before an 'X' freighter version, but as for the final product I don't think it would make much difference which came first. Freighter and passenger are enough different that both would reasonably well optimized (the big things for the freighter are the stronger floor and no windows - but the -9 has windows and passenger strength floors so not much effort there).
I don't think Boeing can do much of anything for $150 million - I suspect just the needed flight test program will cost that much. Depending on how much of the -8 engineering still needs to be done, I'd estimate the additional cost to put the -8 in production after the -9 is certified as somewhere in the $500 million to $1 billion range. Money well spent if it means another 100 aircraft sold.

[Beer Baron]

Struggling to come up with 25 city pairs that would, with competition, require circa 100 aircraft.

ME to AKL
SYD to LHR
SYD to CDG
SYD to FRA
SYD to JFK
SIN TO JFK
PER TO LHR
YYZ TO SYD

where else?
I think it a bit funny that people think that either manufacturer are going to build something ‘just for Qantas’.
The reality is, once an aircraft is flying that has the range to open up new route possibilities airlines will look around for unserved markets and fly them direct.

How about Japan to anywhere in South America. Seoul to Rio.
Perth to LA
LA to Johannesburg.
Auckland to Athens/Istanbul.
Shanghai/Beijing-Lima (as a gateway to all of South America).

I guess my point is, with every leap in aircraft range airlines across the globe have found new routes to try, this should be no different. I do realise we are getting toward a limit of unconnected points however I don’t think we are there yet.

[CurtainTwitcher]

The problem is the longer the route, the larger the effect of the compounding nature of fuel burn as flight time increases. If you look at something like PER-LHR the B787 is around 575 Kg additional fuel burn per ton of payload (16:30 flight time) compared with 385Kg per ton and a BNE-LAX (12:00 hour flight time).

The simple economics of it is that comparing a single sector direct will always have a higher burn overall burn compared to a one stop near the mid point.

The counter point is higher maintenance costs, landing charges & pax handling charges by transiting at a stopover/hub. A hub also allows airlines to increase yield and utilisation of their network.

Routes that work well for ULH point-to-point are probably going to be a more expensive operation for an airline given the fuel vs intermediate stopover tradeoff, for which they are going to have to charge a premium. The best premium comes from a significant time reduction between two points Other airlines operating similar aircraft but with a low cost hub are likely to be able to have a lower cost base, at the expense of travel time.

In my understanding of the world, suitable city pairs for ULH are ones where a direct flight significantly reduces travel time between two cities of significance, generally financial & business centres. Airlines using the intermediate one stop model will be able to capture the non time sensitive travel at a lower cost base using similar equipment. How much of a market is there for these city pairs for Boeing & Airbus, it probably isn't likely to be an enormous market for them.

[Rated De]

"As Alan told the market at our financial results, we can only proceed if the business case stacks up. These aircraft represent a large amount of shareholder money and we need to have confidence about our ability to generate a good return from them. The answer may be that we’re better off returning more money to shareholders or investing more in domestic, Jetstar or our loyalty business instead." (Thanks to those QF folk, providing the enlightening insights!)

Almost perfectly timed, recently minted QFI CEO Tino La Spiv, in a thinly veiled threat to pilots about "project Bananarama" threatened to divert much needed cap ex for fleet re-equipment to "other" parts of the business, or curiously buy back more shares...Go right ahead Tino, slide your feet under your new desk.

The problem, which is soon to be yours Tino, your Boss has neglected to re-equip. Your fuel included CASK is 64% higher across the Pacifc than your competitors and your fleet age is 11 years. CAP EX is needed to be spent on fleet, otherwise you may have a relatively short career as an airline CEO. You see Tino, whilst you enjoyed your weekend, Houthi rebels attacked Saudi Oil Production. What that does to the oil price isn't yet known, but suffice to say YOUR fleet Tino just cost a bit more to run...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-14/drone-attacks-on-saudi-arabia-biggest-oil-facilities-fires/11513728

[Global Aviator]

“You see Tino, whilst you enjoyed your weekend, Houthi rebels attacked Saudi Oil Production. What that does to the oil price isn't yet known, but suffice to say YOUR fleet Tino just cost a bit more to run...”

So with 787s coming for more USA destinations, the 747s days appearing to be numbered, the 380 operating at max cap, yes the tree turties getting long in the tooth, 737 fleet ageing (what’s the competition got?). Fuel goes up, subject to the hedgehogs does it not effect everyone proportionally? Me thinks you just like brewing storms in teacups........

Now back to Bananarama... Hang on that will be an all new efficient fleet or will it? The QF advantage will be the direct routes.

https://youtu.be/m-DZQ80vEVI

[Asturias56]

ULH is a definite advantage but it only applies to certain markets from Australia that's the USA and UK currently - several possible other stops in the USA - I guess it would make sense to extend the network in S America - Rio, Sau Paulo, ?BA? but it gets a bit low rent after that. Maybe re-enter the European market? Paris, Frankfurt, Rome?

For the rest of LH you still have to scrap it out with the local airlines

[Global Aviator]

Once the ULLH proves itself why wouldn’t it work for other markets?

Aussies going on holidays or business would like to go direct??? Otherwise why try? As has been said via DXB was stopped, back to via SIN... but then no new destinations. Yes it was a 747 that went to Franky apart from SIN but where else?

Call it the game changer, call it TequilaSunrise but what it is is different! No one else can compete unless doing it from home base.

Everyone said PER LHR wouldn’t work........ Is it working?


Whatever they build they will come! Straya is a remote island, an airline to survive must show initiative, I think QF does.

Shoot me down for my thoughts, it’s the Aussie way.

*ULLR I’ve called it as it’s more than current ULR.

P.S. If you really think pilot salary’s are going to determine to outcome you are all in lalala land, remember the pointy end costs are fark all compared to the operation. Even with a 6 man crew.

[Asturias56]

Yup UULR could be a QF specialty - most other airlines (eg BA) won't bother as they can tap a lot of markets with an LR fleet

You are right about the proportion of relative costs - BUT you forget the management...

"lets see - we're not making enough profit to trigger my bonus... we need to cut costs- cheaper 'planes? Thought not.... Fuel?? Whoops ......... Landing fees???? Oh.......

SO.......... HOW do I show people I'm the very model of modern manager? Be Ruthless?? Fire the cleaners!! OK but that doesn't make much difference ... and no-one notices (for a while anyway... let's see....... those mouthy, arrogant, uniform wearing snobs who only put in a few days a month.......... hand me the list...."

PEOPLE costs are one of the few things that management actually have any control over

[Street garbage]

Yup UULR could be a QF specialty - most other airlines (eg BA) won't bother as they can tap a lot of markets with an LR fleet

You are right about the proportion of relative costs - BUT you forget the management...

"lets see - we're not making enough profit to trigger my bonus... we need to cut costs- cheaper 'planes? Thought not.... Fuel?? Whoops ......... Landing fees???? Oh.......

SO.......... HOW do I show people I'm the very model of modern manager? Be Ruthless?? Fire the cleaners!! OK but that doesn't make much difference ... and no-one notices (for a while anyway... let's see....... those mouthy, arrogant, uniform wearing snobs who only put in a few days a month.......... hand me the list...."

PEOPLE costs are one of the few things that management actually have any control over

Wrong again. Fuel costs? You don't think management can reduce the Company's LARGEST expenditure by increasing the acceptance rate on more fuel efficient aircraft? Or even ordering them?
As for the "mouthy, arrogant uniform wearing snobs"..well they took a 30% hit last time, and you are now short of them on most fleets..B737, B787, and especially A330..firing them will make all the difference....
The problem with Angels on this forum is a little bit of knowledge is dangerous..

[Rated De]

"lets see - we're not making enough profit to trigger my bonus... we need to cut costs- cheaper 'planes? Thought not.... Fuel?? Whoops ......... Landing fees???? Oh....... SO.......... HOW do I show people I'm the very model of modern manager? Be Ruthless?? Fire the cleaners!! OK but that doesn't make much difference ... and no-one notices (for a while anyway... let's see....... those mouthy, arrogant, uniform wearing snobs who only put in a few days a month.......... hand me the list...."

Yes, that is precisely how they think.
Underneath much of the "corporate administration" of airlines is envy.

Having said that, labour unit cost is low hanging fruit. Rather easy.
It actually takes vision and strategy, to plan for, and purchase a fleet.

Unfortunately for Fort Fumble, the low hanging fruit is all picked. The regulatory limits are their targets. The targets reached they look for ways to squeeze their operating cost.

Rather like Interest rates being cut to generate more consumption; when it doesn't work do it again.

In the interim, real airline management have decided, funded and taken delivery of fuel efficient fleets.
Crew costs matter little when the Capital Generating Unit is in excess of UDS$300 million and has an expected service life of 20 years.

Fort Fumble prefers social discourse, endless media spin and not much else. Their CASK per RPK shows it clearly and no amount of Chairman's lounge memberships will hide it.

Qantas like most airline spend a lot on staff, that is total Full Time Equivalent and a lot of contractors. That includes floors of administration. That is carried in the true seat cost.
It is not their crew costs that need to be tackled.

Fix their fleet metrics and they fix the biggest item of cost (fuel), tackle the back office overhead and they will reform another, they have neither the ability nor desire to do either.

[PlasticFantastic]

The Irish-born boss of Australia’s largest airline, Qantas, has affirmed his confidence in Boeing (https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_company=Boeing) as the planemaker works to improve its aircraft following two fatal crashes involving the 737 Max.

Speaking to The Irish Times, Alan Joyce (https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_person=Alan+Joyce) said: “I think Boeing are fantastic engineering company, they will fix this issue,” adding that his airline had a “lot” of Boeing aircraft.

He said that while Qantas currently has a substantial order for Airbus (https://www.irishtimes.com/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_company=Airbus) Neo aircraft, the airline will next year be looking to place an order for an additional 75 aircraft with either Boeing or France-based Airbus.



https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/quantas-boss-confident-about-boeing-max-1.4046897

Interesting.

[Rated De]

will next year be looking to place an order for an additional 75 aircraft with either Boeing or France-based Airbus.

Some sort of record, so much "looking" over twelve years and yet not a solitary order.
Other airline management simply scratches its head and gets on with it.

[PlasticFantastic]

I'm curious why you think that Qantas should have ordered more aircraft by now. Do you think that there are aircraft, currently in service, that Qantas should already have replaced (other than the 747-400s and ERs, which are on the way out)? Or, do you believe that Qantas will be unable to secure delivery slots to replace part of their fleet before it becomes uncompetitive - and if so, which part?

The reason I'm asking is because Qantas is highly profitable domestically, indicating that its narrowbody fleet is competitive with VA. And, although some of the fleet is aging, none of it is plainly at or approaching retirement age yet. Similarly, QFi is doing better than most of its regional competitors and, other than the 747s, none of its fleet obviously needs to be retired yet. So, unless I'm missing something, the main questions are whether QF:

should have begun replacing parts of its fleet several years before the end of its commercial life (for a Western, full service carrier), and taken any depreciation charges as a result, or
is likely to be unable to secure delivery slots to begin replacing its regional, 737 and A330 fleets in the next few years - given that it has orders for A320neos and 787s, and the A220 and E2 orderbooks are pretty thin, that doesn't seem likely.

[Plastic fantastic]

From the original Plastic fantastic,

I don't know what this new guy is saying, nor do I care but, it ain't me.

Please find another name.

[PlasticFantastic]

From the original Plastic fantastic,

I don't know what this new guy is saying, nor do I care but, it ain't me.

Please find another name.
Sorry! Didn't mean to steal your name. Shall do.

[Asturias56]

"I'm curious why you think that Qantas should have ordered more aircraft by now"

1. Pilots love new aeroplanes - just like spotters (and aircraft manufacturers)

2. New types mean retraining - which adds interest & skills

3. New types means you can try and extort extra cash

4. You can hold up your head with those who have shiny new new types rather the being the girl/guy at the BBQ who has to admit they're flying an airframe that's older than they are.......

I agree with PF (new) - if you are making money why would you take on more debt etc just to have a shiny out of the box fleet? Pay yourself more, retire the debt you have , pay the shareholders and even throw a bone to the whining mob who fly the things

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

"I'm curious why you think that Qantas should have ordered more aircraft by now"

1. Pilots love new aeroplanes - just like spotters (and aircraft manufacturers)

2. New types mean retraining - which adds interest & skills

3. New types means you can try and extort extra cash

4. You can hold up your head with those who have shiny new new types rather the being the girl/guy at the BBQ who has to admit they're flying an airframe that's older than they are.......

I agree with PF (new) - if you are making money why would you take on more debt etc just to have a shiny out of the box fleet? Pay yourself more, retire the debt you have , pay the shareholders and even throw a bone to the whining mob who fly the things


Alternatvely:

1. Many pilots are over the age of 12, and realise that a jet is just a tube with some wings & engines. I think most QF 767 and 747 drivers would’ve been very happy for them not to be retired. New jets are nice, but other things are more important.

2. Who honestly wants to do yet another training course?

3. ‘New types mean you can try and extort extra cash’ - what, like the 30% productivity that was given up on the 787? :rolleyes: And note that Tino says he wants even more concessions beyond that 30%, if he’s to buy any more 787s. There may be extortion going on here, but it’s not from the pilots.

4. See 1.

So why take on debt for a shiny new fleet? Because your existing fleet burns a heap more fuel than more modern alternatives. Because your existing fleet starts costing a lot of money to keep in the air, and may eventually just run out of cycles and hours. And because eventually your passengers might notice that your competition is flying stuff that isn’t 20 or 30 years old. But by all means hang onto your ageing fleet and use the money on share buybacks, $24 million CEO salaries, and to pay QF Angels to write sh1t on the internet. It just mightn’t be the healthiest choice in the long term.

[ClearanceClarence1]

It’s not that hard, best post ever

[Going Boeing]

The main reason that QF pilots want to management to buy some new airplanes is to stop the continuous shrinking of the airline since the bullying Irishman started running the company.

[V-Jet]

The main reason that QF pilots want to management to buy some new airplanes is to stop the continuous shrinking of the airline since the bullying Irishman started running the company.

I thought you wrote ruining the company, or is that what you meant?

[Rated De]

I thought you wrote ruining the company, or is that what you meant?

Brilliant!

[Blueskymine]

"I'm curious why you think that Qantas should have ordered more aircraft by now"

1. Pilots love new aeroplanes - just like spotters (and aircraft manufacturers)

2. New types mean retraining - which adds interest & skills

3. New types means you can try and extort extra cash

4. You can hold up your head with those who have shiny new new types rather the being the girl/guy at the BBQ who has to admit they're flying an airframe that's older than they are.......

I agree with PF (new) - if you are making money why would you take on more debt etc just to have a shiny out of the box fleet? Pay yourself more, retire the debt you have , pay the shareholders and even throw a bone to the whining mob who fly the things

1. Pilots hate new aeroplanes. Especially swapping manufacturers. Just ask a 747 guy how they feel about going to the Airbus. Many would rather retire. And are.

New aeroplanes mean 6 months offline, away from the family holed up in a room somewhere cramming, probing, being examined and scored. You become a broken man at some point during the process. It also becomes harder and harder the older you get.

2. See above.

3. Yep. B scales tend to do that. Or the company can hold your conditions to ransom and threaten any chance of a career or promotion if you don’t play nicely with their train set.

4. Most pilots would prefer to say they fly the 747 classic or a Mad dog at a BBQ. It’s much more purist and interesting to fly.

5. You’re obviously not a pilot.

[Street garbage]

"I'm curious why you think that Qantas should have ordered more aircraft by now"

1. Pilots love new aeroplanes - just like spotters (and aircraft manufacturers)

2. New types mean retraining - which adds interest & skills

3. New types means you can try and extort extra cash

4. You can hold up your head with those who have shiny new new types rather the being the girl/guy at the BBQ who has to admit they're flying an airframe that's older than they are.......

I agree with PF (new) - if you are making money why would you take on more debt etc just to have a shiny out of the box fleet? Pay yourself more, retire the debt you have , pay the shareholders and even throw a bone to the whining mob who fly the things
Extorting cash- is that sort of kinda like share buy back? OR getting paid $495K a week? You are just another Angel completely out of your depth.
its not that hard and blue sky- great posts

[Asturias56]

Interesting.... most of the responses to my post are saying pilots prefer older aeroplanes

But the bulk of the thread is about the need for QF to buy a new fleet.........

hard to have it both ways.....................

[ScepticalOptomist]

Interesting.... most of the responses to my post are saying pilots prefer older aeroplanes

But the bulk of the thread is about the need for QF to buy a new fleet.........

hard to have it both ways.....................

QANTAS need to buy a new fleet for the business - for the efficiencies new aeroplanes can offer. Not for the pilots. It’s really pretty simple - which bit confuses you?

[Rated De]

That an airline generates operating revenue from flying RTK from A to B ought to be self-evident.Doing so efficiently ought to mean that the cost to the shareholder and indeed the environment is minimised. After all Qantas have made a big noise about bio-fuel purchases, removing plastic cutlery and optimised flight plans. The total “savings” in fuel consumption, expense and CO2 the cost of a few weeks’ transits across the Pacific.The rest of the year Qantas burn more fuel per seat, per passenger than their competitors. Fortunately, fuel is, at the present time, relatively cheap. However, all airlines benefit from cheap fuel. Such that the question ought to be asked whether the fuel spend per passenger RPK is higher or lower than competitors: It is substantially higher. As is the output of CO2, fortunately for the likes of Qantas there is no price on excess emission. As the ICCT reported Qantas spend 64% more generating their RPK across the Pacific than their competitors. That is some “transformation”

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

The original statements made by the long retired and almost completely forgotten relic, Leigh Clifford claimed that the QSA 1992 made re-equipment hard. Around AUD$2.5 billion and counting was spent buying back shares. Strange that no better use for capital could be found than enriching insiders like CEO and top 20 shareholder, Alan Joseph Joyce. It is the fleet metrics that start to tell a story of waste. This is the point UBS referred to and the fund manager, Mr Montgomery highlighted. Just to keep the fleet age where it is (and provision for increasing maintenance and ageing aircraft issues) requires a capital expenditure of AUD $1.7 billion per year. Reducing the fleet age back to what the taxpayer gifted them at privatisation will require a very large capital expenditure.

In addition to benefitting from cheaper fuel, cash flows have also been boosted by a strategy that has allowed the fleet to age. The most expensive part of running an airline is replacing old cheap planes with newer and more expensive models. Airlines cannot escape this capital expenditure lest passengers jump to competing airlines with fancier entertainment offerings and more comfortable seats, bars and beds. You can call it a disciplined approach to capital spending or you could say the board might prefer to see the share price go up now, maximise share price-related incentives for current management and leave the reality of replacing planes to the next guy.

https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/where-next-for-qantas



So:

· A mid-late life A330 fleet
· A to be retired B747 fleet
· A B737 fleet where the oldest aircraft are 17-18 years old.
· An A380 fleet of debatable book value.

Of course more expenditure on fleet for JQ could be undertaken, although the revenue generated for a segment as large as the parent indicates that the business is well over scale: ASK flown versus revenue generated is horrible! Little Napoleon claimed he could spend more on Frequent Flyer instead of fleet. Hard to imagine what tangible value a Frequent Flyer business has without an airline.
How big is the required CAP EX? $15-$20 billion? How long does it take to scope, order and find a slot then take delivery of a new fleet?
Does the company issue new equity or continue to gear the company?
Are there production slots?

That Little Napoleon spend his time with social discourse and social engineering while the fleet over which he has presided for 11 years continues to burn more hydrocarbon fuel than necessary, emitting more CO2 than competitors while costing the shareholders more per flight than the competitors is hardly transformative. It is at best negligent.

Someone is going to have to spend the money, Qantas need a fuel efficient and lower emitting fleet.

[High_To_Low]

Any further update on what is going to replace the B744 on JNB?
With the B789 starting SFO in December 19 and SCL in June 20 are we likely to see a SYD B789 base open anytime soon?

[ruprecht]

Rumour has it....

...that the 787 SYD base will be announced with the next round of vacancies. Available for bidding in Apr-May (approx) to open in July. Timed to coincide with the 744 RIN.

[Rated De]

Once again Fort Fumble, lacking fleet capacity and strategy drift ever closer to the lee shore. Little Napoleon resplendent in his dress uniform, stands proudly on the poop deck holding the tiller of the rudderless ship...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/air-new-zealand-to-fly-non-stop-to-new-york-20191023-p533bl.html

[PPRuNeUser0198]

Alan gives the ‘thumbs up’ to the A220. ‘Even the toilets are big’ he quotes...

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/10/qantas-ceo-alan-joyce-gives-airbus-a220-the-thumbs-up/

[davidclarke]

Alan gives the ‘thumbs up’ to the A220. ‘Even the toilets are big’ he quotes...

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/10/qantas-ceo-alan-joyce-gives-airbus-a220-the-thumbs-up/

lol “even the toilets are big” is code for let’s throw in another row of seats.

[Rated De]

lol “even the toilets are big” is code for let’s throw in another row of seats.

That the toilets are big, rather depends on the stature of the person...

[Rated De]

Oh dear, how does the domestic ASK count look like with a few airframes grounded..

One might posit they need a new fleet..

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-launches-inspection-blitz-after-cracks-found-on-boeing-737s-20191030-p535xo.html

[blow.n.gasket]

With all the revelations in the media lately of under payments in wages by many respected companies , what’s the chance Qantas will have to defend their position reference this trending allegation ?

[gordonfvckingramsay]

This trending allegation should be of great concern to them!

[Rated De]

Qantas urged to ground all of its 737s after second aircraft crack discovered


Well, Well, well, maybe fort fumble needs some more "research flights"

With the fix for this being rather substantive, one might posit where it will be done and how long it will take.
Qantas need new management.

Qantas' head of engineering Chris Snook said calls for a grounding were "completely irresponsible."

No Mr Snook, (patsy) it may actually prove prudent to do so until satisfied that all inspections completed and no further cracks are found.
Then you can stand proudly on the poop deck next to Little Napoleon and both chime simultaneously, "safety before executive remuneration"






https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-urged-to-ground-all-of-its-737s-after-second-aircraft-crack-discovered-20191031-p5360y.html

[dragon man]

Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of #####. The only spare capacity they have is 747, so 330 back to domestic and 747 to Honolulu again maybe.

[Jetsbest]

What did the A330 crews ever do to you?:};):O

[V-Jet]

I’m not an engineer but unlike any Qf execs I have come across, I have enormous respect for Engineering skills and knowledge. I don’t believe any would deliberately set about making public comments about anything related to aviation safety without very good reason.

Jetsbest - looks like they will be doing a lot for everyone if Qf keeps parking maggots!

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Grounding a (only one) fleet because of a possible structural issue is “irresponsible”, but grounding them for industrial reasons is ok? Fvck me this place is a joke.

[V-Jet]

A very good point Mr Ramsey....

[SOPS]

Funny..I was thinking the same thing, Gordon.

[Rated De]

Grounding a (only one) fleet because of a possible structural issue is “irresponsible”, but grounding them for industrial reasons is ok? Fvck me this place is a joke.


Vibrant and diverse.

Busy planning the nuptials, Little Napoleon had Chief Patsy Snook stand in. Reading from a prepared script, he said a grounding was irresponsible, neglecting that in 2011 it was "conservative".

[V-Jet]

3 x 737NG's now parked.

There is an interesting comment on a press article saying the writer would never risk getting on any aircraft that might have a crack, and follows it up with suggesting Qantas start watching Air Crash Investigators.

Realistically any risk of anything major is likely very low and they are obviously being inspected but Qantas trades on safety and the optics are not favourable. Frequent Flyer points can only be sold if Flyers want to Fly:)

[downdata]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-01/qantas-says-three-boeing-737-found-with-cracks/11661320

[Rated De]

Frequent Flyer points can only be sold if Flyers want to Fly

Having already tried to turn the FF business into groceries Fort Fumble need a fleet for the "value" of Frequent Flyer" to be anymore than a mailing list.

[AerialPerspective]

Grounding a (only one) fleet because of a possible structural issue is “irresponsible”, but grounding them for industrial reasons is ok? Fvck me this place is a joke.

And yet, the same management grounded the entire A380 fleet when QF32 occurred and kept them grounded when many others kept flying them... now what's your cynical smart a--e reply for that one... you can't have it both ways.

[Rated De]

And yet, the same management grounded the entire A380 fleet when QF32 occurred and kept them grounded when many others kept flying them... now what's your cynical smart a--e reply for that one... you can't have it both ways.

Many of the others that continued flying either had different power-plant or had the modification (Trent 900) to the oil feed pipe already undertaken.
As Qantas had surrendered engineering authority to Rolls Royce, paying for "Power by the Hour" they knew not the status of the modifications.

In this case they do not either. The inference Mr Purvinas, it is posited was trying to suggest that the inspection be done to eliminate the problem as a matter of prudence.
Qantas do not know the extent of the problem, thus to ground, inspect ( one hour each) and return to service would seem neither excessive nor inconsistent.

[blow.n.gasket]

3 airframes now , so that’s near enough to 10% of the target fleet found
with cracks !
Quite significant I would say !
Rated D’s comments above would appear to have gravitas .

[Global Aviator]

Let’s get this into a worldwide perspective as QF’s fleet are but a wee drop in the ocean.....

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/625886-737ngs-have-cracked-pickle-forks-after-finding-several-jets.html

What have other airlines done with effected airframes?

[Australopithecus]

There may be an amendment to the AD coming since three aircraft in the discretionary inspection group are cracked. Originally the high cycle airframes required an immediate inspection. I cannot imagine the FAA remaining sanguine about the Qantas cohort of cracked pickle forks.

[SecretAngel]

I know some will disagree with me, but I don't think that pickle fork cracks are an argument for a new fleet. I think there's some confirmation bias going on here.

Cracked pickle forks are a design defect. And, design defects can effect brand new planes (787 batteries, A380 wingspars, 737MAX MCAS and the PW-powered A320neo engines...). Hell, based on recent years, design defects are more likely to affect new planes.

If QF had already started its NB replacement program, there's a pretty good chance that most of their fleet would be grounded or flying with limits. To the extent that anyone wants to rely on design defects as an argument about whether or not QF should replace it's fleet, I'd say that QF being a late adopter has allowed it to dodge a stack of bullets lately.

[Rated De]

So a self imposed deadline looms.
Accordingly Fort Fumble mouth that it is pilot cost the stumbling block.
Thank you to the Qantas folk supplying this information.

“As you know, Sunrise is not a foregone conclusion and ultimately this flying needs to be commercially viable,”

If the business case hinges on pilot terms and conditions, may we respectfully suggest it is a marginal case and best not be done at all.
The industry at large will be very appreciative of the data from the "research flights" being released, as well as a long term study into health outcomes.


Little Napoleon has remarked

“It’s a very exciting project but it is not too big to fail and if we don’t have a business case we won’t do it because that’s what our shareholders expect.”

Given the marginal nature of the business case making it all pilot dependent, perhaps best let Little Napoleon do what he does remarkably well; fail.


They do however need a new fleet


“Sunrise feels to me like an incredible opportunity to grow our international business ... given the size of these opportunities, it’s important we work together and leave no stone unturned in coming-up with an agreement that works for all."

The inner glow may actually relate to " personal incentives" for "deals" being voted up.

“Qantas has invested heavily in processes and expertise to meaningfully address pilot fatigue, and CASA’s [Civil Aviation Safety Authority] approval of the FRMS [Fatigue Risk Management System] trial is recognition of this,” the letter reads.

Does this investment refer to Chairman's lounge memberships and upgrades for CASA representatives?

https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/qantas-scrambles-to-lock-in-pilot-support-as-project-sunrise-deadline-looms-20191101-p536lt.html

[dragon man]

The weight increase is not significant, really 250 tonnes to 319 on the A350 only 28%. The 747 to the 380 was similar and pays 5% more, well I’ll take the 5% of there quoted $450,000 which equates to $22,500 not the $10,000 they quote. Better in pilots pockets than fatten the pay packets of the greedy pricks that run the place.

[SecretAngel]

Given the marginal nature of the business case making it all pilot dependent, perhaps best let Little Napoleon do what he does remarkably well; fail.

Do you have an actual quote from Joyce or QF where they have said the business case will live or die on the pilot EA? In all of the quotes I've seen, I haven't seen him make that link. And, he's generally also mentioned pricing, performance guarantees and delivery slots from Airbus and Boeing, as a part of most statements in the business case.

Clearly, in reality, the pilot EA is only one part of the equation. But it is a part of the equation. And I'm not sure that Joyce has suggested otherwise.

[Rated De]

The weight increase is not significant, really 250 tonnes to 319 on the A350 only 28%. The 747 to the 380 was similar and pays 5% more, well I’ll take the 5% of there quoted $450,000 which equates to $22,500 not the $10,000 they quote. Better in pilots pockets than fatten the pay packets of the greedy pricks that run the place.

Does the quoted amount include all benefits and pensions?

[dragon man]

Does the quoted amount include all benefits and pensions?
Yes, meal allowances and superannuation, trying to make the mutton look like lamb. As we got sold out in the 787 deal and you go back to first year money they have used fourth year pay rate and not minimum guarantee of 145 hours which is what they are flying at the moment. If you do that then the correct figure is about $350,000. Big big difference to their quoted $450,000.

[Vindiesel]

Yes, meal allowances and superannuation, trying to make the mutton look like lamb. As we got sold out in the 787 deal and you go back to first year money they have used fourth year pay rate and not minimum guarantee of 145 hours which is what they are flying at the moment. If you do that then the correct figure is about $350,000. Big big difference to their quoted $450,000.

350k MGH on the 787? What is it on the 747? I make it about 330k (or 20k less than your 787 figure) based on the current $310/hr and 160 hrs per BP.

[dragon man]

350k MGH on the 787? What is it on the 747? I make it about 330k (or 20k less than your 787 figure) based on the current $310/hr and 160 hrs per BP.

The $350,000 I quoted includes allowances and super of approx $40,000, so min guarantee on the 747 is higher. However as we know there is overtime on the 747 and 380 which has been about 30 hours a bid period on the 747 and 50 hours on the 380. The 787 does the same overtime but is not paid for it.

[Vindiesel]

The $350,000 I quoted includes allowances and super of approx $40,000, so min guarantee on the 747 is higher. However as we know there is overtime on the 747 and 380 which has been about 30 hours a bid period on the 747 and 50 hours on the 380. The 787 does the same overtime but is not paid for it.





The 787 MGH Captain pay would be 310k at Year 1 and 332k at Year 4 (the latter of which which you would be on if you went there as part of the 747 RIN) . Plus you need to add STACR and training credit worth about 15k/year = 325k year 1 to 347k at Year 4 minimum earnings excluding allowances and super. These are the absolute minimum earnings (MGH + training + STACR) before allowances and super. Working at planning divisors (which is the long term assumption) would add another 25k/year or so to these figures. Allowances and super would then be on top. The 787 flies almost exclusively to Band 5 overseas ports (USA/UK/HKG) which pay 295 AUD per day tax free - the 747 flies to many more countries not in band 5.

Also not sure about your 30 hours per BP for the 747... maybe for those doing SFO flying but that's finished in a month or so. After that, JNB and SCL will be the only real overtime trips and they're a lot lower in OT.

[knobbycobby]

That’s a phishing email is it not? Pretending to be the CP?
So Boeing and Airbus both have held Qantas slots for sunrise, and thus have special Sunrise teams working around the clock on it. You know in case we go either way.
So it is all down to a pilot EA? Has to be signed ASAP or the teams are forced to down tools with only days left they can work on the deal. But the science hasn’t been proven. However it will be with 3 flights in total that are half patterns.
And some data swept up from a sector that is totally irrelevant and way shorter flown at better times of the day.
So the last 787 EA was sold as a growth type but now is just a replacement. But trust us the new type will be growth. Even though Joyce has said it’s a 380 replacement from 2023.
In summary. Crap deal. Science not complete. Not Accurate. Only pilots have to sacrifice. Both manufacturers won’t keep working on it unless pilots capitulate. If they don’t they are going to put the money into car insurance or pickle fork maintenance.
Reported as Phishing email. Actually can it be without anything on the hook?

[Jetsbest]

The 787 flies almost exclusively to Band 5 overseas ports (USA/UK/HKG) which pay 295 AUD per day tax free - the 747 flies to many more countries not in band 5.

Why is that relevant? The allowance rates paid are dependent on:
a. the places one is put by the company,
b. the time spent in these places, and
c. determined by the Australian Public Service rates for those places,
d. as agreed by Qantas in the Enterprise Agreements.

Allowances are not income; they are intended to cover the reasonable, and independently assessed, costs of staying in those places. (but, granted, if a person chooses to stay in their room & live on cup-noodles they’ll have funds left over.:rolleyes:) If crew don’t travel they don’t get allowances. Allowances are a business cost of having crew serving your company’s customers around the world.

I disagree that allowances should be considered part of an employee’s income.

[Capt Colonial]

Why is that relevant? The allowance rates paid are dependent on:
a. the places one is put by the company,
b. the time spent in these places, and
c. determined by the Australian Public Service rates for those places,
d. as agreed by Qantas in the Enterprise Agreements.

Allowances are not income; they are intended to cover the reasonable, and independently assessed, costs of staying in those places. (but, granted, if a person chooses to stay in their room & live on cup-noodles they’ll have funds left over.:rolleyes:) If crew don’t travel they don’t get allowances. Allowances are a business cost of having crew serving your company’s customers around the world.

I disagree that allowances should be considered part of an employee’s income.

I agree!

I would also have a guess that if QANTAS are now calling Meal Allowances Income then the Tax Implications might change as well.
In the B-747 RIN Fact Sheet (Uncontrolled released document to all Qantas International Flight Crew) on page 9 of section 32 clearly confirms the Pay Rates for comparison (B-747 to B787 to A330). The document (Dec 2018) states the MGH income for a Captain B-787 is $338K (145 Hrs) and $361 (155 Hrs) Note Includes STACR!
So, this Claim/Response summary release by the Chief Pilot is riddled with inaccuracies and false information.

[What The]

So the Chief Pilot has been caught with his pants down.

For the third time.

[SOPS]

I see the letter has been ‘leaked’ to the media . It says Captains will average $445000. The PR war has begun, it seems.

[FightDeck]

The Chief Pilot based the pay on 175 hours, max allowances and super.
Dont forget that as the fleet size is small the 787 crews are currently doing long slips in many places. Once the full 14 arrive and replace the last jumbos it will reduce.
London used to be 78 hours and now it’s 50 odd. Still plenty of our 787 crew getting 80 hour LA slips.The JFKs get 3 LAX and 2 JFK as well.
As 787 crews will know the hours have dropped now. But Sunrise won’t be flying to Asia like the 787 or doing MDC patterns.

All that to one side. 3 flights of only one sector as “Research” is utter un scientific bollocks.
No one I know wants to do 3 back to back 23+ hour TOD for multiple rosters. Massive jet lag and you’ll be missing out on plenty of allowances and rest if you skip layovers in LAX or SIN. Max jet lag and rest on your time not the company. If it’s bumpy or noisy or you get a ****ty sleep you’ll be completely f&$#ed.
Pay is one issue. Your not going to do the most horrible Ultra long haul flying and get paid 787 money to do it.Most junior Be getting assigned if it crap.
Must also be safe and sustainable. Too many blokes keeling over even with a decent contact. I don’t plan dying to help out Alan or Tino. Dick won’t be doing 20 trips a year I can tell you. His email obituaries are nice though when it kills you.
Looks like they are in a desperate rush. If they move onto investing in car insurance then let them.
As the Chief Pilot has admitted The 787 is just a 747 replacement type. Last EA Qantas said the 787 would be a growth type.
They lied back then so I have lost any trust. They will blame Pilots for anything anyway so unless it’s decent in pay and sustainable working conditions they can stick it.
I did hear HR/IR want to get us distracted on pay issues so we don’t discuss the glaring holes in the data collection and proper research.
I don’t think AIPA and the pilots are going to fall for this a second time. Not with CEO pulling close to 100 million total by next year. Profits are up. Spineless Latinos insulting email has backfired too.

[ruprecht]

So the Chief Pilot has been caught with his pants down.

For the third time.

Gold

....

[Rated De]

Do you have an actual quote from Joyce or QF where they have said the business case will live or die on the pilot EA? In all of the quotes I've seen, I haven't seen him make that link. And, he's generally also mentioned pricing, performance guarantees and delivery slots from Airbus and Boeing, as a part of most statements in the business case.


The pilot costs/considerations of any fleet decision are literally a side note in their big spread sheet.

Any business case requiring concessions from flight/cabin crew to "stack up" is by definition marginal.

[downdata]

I know some will disagree with me, but I don't think that pickle fork cracks are an argument for a new fleet. I think there's some confirmation bias going on here.

Cracked pickle forks are a design defect. And, design defects can effect brand new planes (787 batteries, A380 wingspars, 737MAX MCAS and the PW-powered A320neo engines...). Hell, based on recent years, design defects are more likely to affect new planes.

If QF had already started its NB replacement program, there's a pretty good chance that most of their fleet would be grounded or flying with limits. To the extent that anyone wants to rely on design defects as an argument about whether or not QF should replace it's fleet, I'd say that QF being a late adopter has allowed it to dodge a stack of bullets lately.

How late is late though? The A320neo already have a 7 year backlog (that is 2027) even at a higher 70/m production rate which AB has yet to meet. If QF started their replacement program 4 years ago, they probably wont be receiving their a/c until the next few years.

The issues you mentioned, except for the max, are common for EIS of a new type... and you get compensated through higher discounts. You don't “dodge bullets” by paying 2x what others have paid in the past.