So you need a new fleet Leigh? [Archive] - Page 6

Chad Gates

1st Nov 2019, 22:53

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

I had to go searching for this article. There are actually 2. One has the dollar figures and one doesn’t. Not one comment made (there were hundreds about the obscene amount AJ made though, very very few were complimentary). I’m not sure the public could care less. It’s not like it’s a strike, or a grounding. Nobody’s plans will be disrupted if Sunrise gets shelved. So I’d have to guess, nobody cares. Not sure what PR they expect out of this anyway. I’ve not spoken to one colleague who cares if the pilots get blamed.

gtseraf

1st Nov 2019, 23:24

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.

HEAR HEAR

I am very disturbed when people refer to allowances as part of their salary. FFS, allowances are there to cover COSTS associated with the job.

Salary is there to reward one for doing the work.

2 totally different things.

C441

2nd Nov 2019, 01:27

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?
The CEO has been quoted as saying that if a cost saving agreement cannot be reached with the pilots by the end of the year (now a proposal put to the vote that can be finalised by Feb 2020) then the project will be scrapped and the funds diverted to other areas of the group.

As I and others have mentioned before, if Project Sunrise balances so finely on the acceptance or otherwise of a percentage productivity increase through a Pilot EA, then the project should not go ahead purely on financial grounds. So many other variable costs (fuel, a Global crisis, dollar devaluation, even an inconveniently erupting volcano to name just a few) would render it unviable if the margins are that tight.

FightDeck

2nd Nov 2019, 04:09

I had to go searching for this article. There are actually 2. One has the dollar figures and one doesn’t. Not one comment made (there were hundreds about the obscene amount AJ made though, very very few were complimentary). I’m not sure the public could care less. It’s not like it’s a strike, or a grounding. Nobody’s plans will be disrupted if Sunrise gets shelved. So I’d have to guess, nobody cares. Not sure what PR they expect out of this anyway. I’ve not spoken to one colleague who cares if the pilots get blamed.

indeed! Well said.
The pilot costs are a small percentage. They are not the make or break. Joyce was going on about the massive premium he could charge because the flight was so long and saved so much time. Over $2000 per business seat.
Well he can pay the pilots adequately that have to sit in the ruddy aircraft for 23 hours and do that S$#@ over and over. He will have long gone with his 100 million. His pay is out of line with any global airline remuneration so the media won’t give two f&$# what we do if we are not in a dispute.
It’s our pilots that will have to fly those missions back to back for many years.
The pilots do more arduous work, with less stopover time to refresh and sleep not to mention the loss of allowance.
Let him blame us. I couldn’t care. I’m not interested in flying that unless it acknowledges the fatigue risk, is compensated for that accordingly and The remuneration at least equals the severity of the flying.
Where is the adequate science to say it’s safe long term anyway? CP getting ahead of himself.

Street garbage

2nd Nov 2019, 04:12

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

For the third time.
Has Security got a copy of the CCTV??

Street garbage

2nd Nov 2019, 04:14

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.
You haven't read Tino's email, have you?

JamieMaree

2nd Nov 2019, 04:27

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.

your major problem is that, although what you assert used to be the way allowances were considered, modern generations of pilots and cabin crew use meal allowances to inflate their income when applying for loans. Nowadays, the ATO, banks, employers consider meal allowances to be income. All that is different is that there is a certain amount that the ATO considers to be tax free.
the horse has bolted. A long time ago on this issue.

rockarpee

2nd Nov 2019, 04:44

................

Jetsbest

2nd Nov 2019, 06:11

JM,

What I assert is more the way now than it ever was.

I have heard rare stories of everything from mortgage trauma to alimony defaults caused by reliance on flawed assumptions and a reliance on ‘surplus’ allowances being brought home as ‘income’;.... a LONG time ago & well before the banking inquiry.🙄 Those few who used the ploy you’ve described found that, when the allowances stopped (injury, illness, retirement, reduced flying after SARS & 9/11 etc) the financial commitment was beyond reach.... & ruinous.

I would be very surprised these days if anyone could convince a bank to consider allowances as income for the purpose of a mortgage or investment loan. The real “major problem” seems to be that some think allowances are just money for nothing and should be considered as income, quoted to disingenuously inflate remuneration figures, despite agreements which quantify what are the reasonable amounts for their purpose.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.😉

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

2nd Nov 2019, 06:32

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?
QF 's new jingle

Don Diego

2nd Nov 2019, 07:52

Hey JM, wrong again go and read the tax rules champ.

JamieMaree

2nd Nov 2019, 09:05

Hey JM, wrong again go and read the tax rules champ.

I have,many times, more than you would know,chump.

FightDeck

2nd Nov 2019, 09:46

Don Diego

2nd Nov 2019, 22:27

You may have read it but you still don't understand it so get your tax agent to explain to you slowly and in words of one syllable.

neville_nobody

3rd Nov 2019, 01:24

your major problem is that, although what you assert used to be the way allowances were considered, modern generations of pilots and cabin crew use meal allowances to inflate their income when applying for loans. Nowadays, the ATO, banks, employers consider meal allowances to be income. All that is different is that there is a certain amount that the ATO considers to be tax free. the horse has bolted. A long time ago on this issue

The ATO does not consider allowances as income, if they did you would be paying your marginal rate on them. The idea is that allowances are fully expended. And if you are stupid enough to try and claim them as income the portion you are saying that is not being spent could be taxable at your marginal rate.:ugh:Any of your Cabin Crew buddies who are using their allowances as income could be in for a nasty surprise if they get audited by the ATO.

Maggie Island

3rd Nov 2019, 01:51

I obviously don’t know how every airline works, but surely all aircrew are in receipt of allowances that are “folded into” salaries as described by the ATO as a taxable part of your income?

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/PAYG-withholding/Payments-you-need-to-withhold-from/Payments-to-employees/Allowances-and-reimbursements/Travel-allowances/

Therefore if the tax man is happy to tax the relevant allowances as income I’m sure using em for loan applications etc is above board!

Vindiesel

3rd Nov 2019, 01:20

The pay figures are bogus and inflated. Regardless it’s still well short of 747 pay
Sunrise isn’t the 787 and does much harder flying so the 787 is not relevant
3 half patterns represents fraud and not science. I’d doubt CASA is going to allow it anyway. If they do it’s negligent
All a setup to blame pilots and be a red herring. 787 needs to be improved and SH especially

I doubt they're inflated. More likely they are higher than pilots expect because they don't understand their own EBA and are forgetting to include things like defined benefit superannuation (which many 787 pilots are on and which is linked directly to the hourly rate - higher than the A380 rate) and forgetting to include things like ADTA and ODTA ($90 per day and $40 per day off the top of my head) which can easily add another $10k per year to these figures as well.

Blueskymine

3rd Nov 2019, 01:33

The correct way to lodge allowances is to add your total allowances to your gross salary.

Then you claim the max reasonable amount back for every night you were away.

The ATO views allowances as income. They also want to see what you spent it on. If you don’t keep a travel diary and you do get audited, they will treat your allowances as income and they will tax your marginal rate on it.

Hence why you need to declare it.

neville_nobody

3rd Nov 2019, 01:38

I obviously don’t know how every airline works, but surely all aircrew are in receipt of allowances that are “folded into” salaries as described by the ATO as a taxable part of your income?

No they are not folded into anything they are separate. In the 'good old days' they were paid in cash by the hotel. Each airline has a different way of paying them these days but the principle is the same.
They are not considered income by anyone except for maybe a few cool aid drinking management types and a few angels who have no idea how aviation works it would appear.

JamieMaree

3rd Nov 2019, 01:40

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/a9a2ba5f_ddb5_4f5d_8cdd_e839a9951dee_2a6e389bdbe35648feff5ed 36ae769cef47038a5.png
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/2472e820_992f_4748_a917_e81a7ee9a0eb_5dc86a14341b8ad31e86a6e 451b73c8d30408765.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/fcea942f_6c38_4830_bbe1_1f3e1b248a1f_a44a92878036105643aae94 89dd73e4b32710c1e.png
As you can see there is a taxable component
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/75ee0c30_8cfa_458e_acbd_e8d7b81b88be_cdaa21d752995214cb896de 28f9f842519eee197.png

V-Jet

3rd Nov 2019, 02:50

your major problem is that, although what you assert used to be the way allowances were considered, modern generations of pilots and cabin crew use meal allowances to inflate their income when applying for loans. Nowadays, the ATO, banks, employers consider meal allowances to be income. All that is different is that there is a certain amount that the ATO considers to be tax free.
the horse has bolted. A long time ago on this issue.

1) If anyone isn't doing everything to maximise their affordability profile when applying for loans then they are clinically insane. Of particular note there is Qantas' nasty habit of contracting as opposed to full time, only full time workers get easy access to home loans.
2) Whether allowances are considered income or not, they are generally spent on exactly what they were designed to be spent on. Living when away from home.
3) Is there a point to your interest in allowances? Will it help get Qantas back on track after years of neglect? Will it help any 73 be inspected for wing cracks any faster?

Rated De

3rd Nov 2019, 04:39

3) Is there a point to your interest in allowances? Will it help get Qantas back on track after years of neglect? Will it help any 73 be inspected for wing cracks any faster?

Fair point.

Hypothetically, even if Little Napoleon breaks away from his marital bliss and "cuts" a deal any new type he has admitted is at least four years away.
In four years, the fleet metrics left unchecked will be much worse. The capital expenditure requirements more onerous.

What has been evident is that the mood of the financial community has changed a little with respect to Qantas. Once jovial and light hearted, with Little Napoleon taking the audience on a magical fantasy ride of aviation wonder, the analysts are now a little more attentive with respect to the fleet, the future and indeed succession.
By usual industry metrics he has had a long run, with little to show other than personal remuneration.
The analysts that talked it up can just as easily ask harder questions. Off script he performs terribly.

neville_nobody

4th Nov 2019, 00:25

As you can see there is a taxable component

Yes that is because Qantas exceed what the ATO think is a reasonable amount. It does not make it income. Just give up on this. The ATO does not think that your allowances are part of your salary.

Is there a point to your interest in allowances? Will it help get Qantas back on track after years of neglect? Will it help any 73 be inspected for wing cracks any faster?

I suspect that they think it is a way of somehow lowering people's salaries by claiming allowances are part of your income. That way they pay a lower salary then the allowance part which is variable and tax free which means less actual money paid out.

JamieMaree

4th Nov 2019, 02:21

Qantas longhaul pilots don’t get paid a salary. Short haul pilots get paid a salary. Then they get other money as well.
Each two weeks they get an amount of money that goes into their nominated bank account. It is the amount left over after deductions, one of which is tax.
Some of it is meal allowances, some of it is ODTA/ADTA.
Various parts of the gross of that money get taxed at different rates for different reasons.
I never said that the ATO thought that allowances were part of salary. All I said was that these days a lot of aircrew use meal allowances to inflate their income so that a bank will give them a bigger loan. No more no less.
Some people choose to include meal allowances and superannuation when describing how much someone is paid. I’m not one of them.

neville_nobody

4th Nov 2019, 03:33

Yeah you did........

your major problem is that, although what you assert used to be the way allowances were considered, modern generations of pilots and cabin crew use meal allowances to inflate their income when applying for loans. Nowadays, the ATO, banks, employers consider meal allowances to be income. All that is different is that there is a certain amount that the ATO considers to be tax free. the horse has bolted. A long time ago on this issue.

And people still should not be using it as part of a loan application

JamieMaree

4th Nov 2019, 03:41

You still haven’t come to grips with the difference between income and salary.
Your bold, I said income, not salary.

rockarpee

4th Nov 2019, 05:07

JM’s keyboard is SMOKIN.....well done guys and gals, thread drift at its best.

V-Jet

4th Nov 2019, 06:14

.JM’s keyboard is SMOKIN.

Indeed - and I had no idea this was a banking forum! For JM's benefit (as he has so little to contribute on anything aviation) banks rely on last three years ITR's, payslips and costs of living. Costs of living these days in Australia border on good old fashioned communism. What Credit at a bank decides you should be allowed to have. The rules are insane but allow people like QF another form of financial bastardy I referred to earlier. Particularly F/A's (that I'm aware of) are employed as contractors which effectively locks them out of the housing market. Want a home loan? Become a full time employee 'just sign here and we will fill in the conditions later' and of course, take a paycut! It's disgusting behaviour and financial bullying at it's 'soft glove' finest, but young Jamie and his/her/LGBTQIOMBYUS (it's worth adding a few letters lest I offend through omission) ilk would be very supportive of same I am sure.

Now once again, how the HELL is this banking conversation (which I am happy to discuss in great depth) relating in ANY way to the point of the thread. Which (as I read it) is the fact Qf don't have;
a) the right management
b) making anything like the right decisions
c) nor showing any capability of genuinely forward thinking strategic decision making
d) to achieve anything like the right fleet/partner/destination mix, or
e) any ambition excepting their world class expertise and truly exemplary efforts in personal remuneration at the expense of anything that is in the long term interests of the Company.
f) It doesn’t take much for the shorts get their teeth into something like this

Transition Layer

6th Nov 2019, 07:11

Come on Alan! (https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-on-verge-of-multibillion-dollar-decision-to-replace-domestic-fleet-20191029-p535fo.html)

Sounds like Alan took Patrick out for a nice long lunch and talked up buying new aircraft “possibly” next year, as a thinly veiled attempt to divert attention away from the pickle fork controversy.

dragon man

6th Nov 2019, 07:48

They are hurting as I have said on the US flights which I suspect will get a lot worse in the new year. There is a recession happening in Australia I have spoken to two people with small businesses there turnover is off 30%.

drshmoo

6th Nov 2019, 08:22

SecretAngel

6th Nov 2019, 08:34

Pat may have blown the hatch on this one TL. Smoke and mirrors distraction!
TL spot on!!
Joyce also discussed it on the A220 sales flight, at the annual results, in last year's annual report etc. He's been planning to firm up plans for the domestic fleet replacement next year for a while - it's just getting more press now that it's imminent.

I suppose pushing is for a couple of extra stories on old news could be a good PR distraction. I reckon that's a good thing, if it fills more seats and keeps us all in the job.

V-Jet

6th Nov 2019, 08:44

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-on-verge-of-multibillion-dollar-decision-to-replace-domestic-fleet-20191029-p535fo.html

Just Head Office - bonuses up by the one salary gone, good news there.

Also very important:
“To be clear about this, we are still growing in cabin crew, in pilots, in airport staff. We have a new aircraft arriving next week.”
See - they are expanding!

Rated De

6th Nov 2019, 09:31

We have a new aircraft arriving next week

A whole complete aircraft!

So Little Napoleon needs a new fleet.
Who would have thought it.
They are also heavy back office staff, what an amazing revelation.

A proposed cap ex of AUD$2billion a year does little other than maintain the current fleet age.
They need to spend far more than that.

Transition Layer

6th Nov 2019, 10:46

Pat may have blown the hatch on this one TL. Smoke and mirrors distraction!
TL spot on!!
“Blown the hatch” I see what you did there :D

dragon man

8th Nov 2019, 06:19

OQB Qantas 1door nearly removed I guess by a catering truck this afternoon, 3 weeks on the ground. Oh dear.

Going Boeing

8th Nov 2019, 07:24

OQB Qantas 1door nearly removed I guess by a catering truck this afternoon, 3 weeks on the ground. Oh dear.

Luckily, the International Rescue fleet still has 6 aircraft left to take up the slack - what will they do after they are retired?

Global Aviator

8th Nov 2019, 13:03

Luckily, the International Rescue fleet still has 6 aircraft left to take up the slack - what will they do after they are retired?

Maybe they will just keep on keepen on a wee while longer..........

Rated De

11th Nov 2019, 00:09

Thanks Patrick, your Chairman’s lounge access is finalised.

It has been a hell of a week.Fresh of the “research flight” you shovelled out some well-timed articles, with a crescendo of anti-staff rhetoric; those pesky pilots.Then of course, pickle forks made an appearance. We had to send out a well fed Head of Engineering and the only idiot left in the village to slander the head of the engineering union. The game changing CEO is still enjoying her honeymoon. Despite the elevated salary, he had other things to do. Sadly, with no superlative in sight it appears he just isn’t interested. Unfortunately, Steve Purvinas was right, the pickle forks are cracking on aircraft well outside the FAA edict. You could have actually done some journalism and published a rebuttal of Andrew David’s slanderous allegations and apologised to Steve Purvinas, but you didn’t. Good choice Patrick, the point end is much more comfortable isn’t it?

So to today’s little puff piece.

At Coward Street we take our spin seriously. ICAO has no ETS and the one that it does only applies for International airlines in 2027. The reality Patrick is that the aviation industry has no plan to “transition” off hydrocarbon based fuel. Offsets are great, excess emitter airlines "buy" them (at a cheap enough price not to be a Problem-Thank you ICAO!) from those with less emissions. The industry continues at a growth rate of 5% or so into perpetuity but airlines themselves can trundle around with fuel inefficient aircraft and hopefully no one notices that the fleet burns more fuel per seat than the competitors.

Qantas' current offsetting projects include restoring wetlands and rainforest in far north Queensland, reducing the chance of wildfires in the North Kimberley and conserving 7000 hectares of Tasmanian forest which might otherwise be logged.However some scientists and environmentalists question the merits of land-based offsetting schemes, because they do not stop carbon entering the atmosphere in the first place.The company will also spend $50 million over 10 years on research and investment to help develop a biofuel industry in Australia.

Clearly Patrick, you haven't read Qantas' concerns with bio-fuel. Technically feasible but commercially a minefield.
Is certainly a revelation that Qantas are logging in Tasmania. Not much a stretch when an airline now sells insurance and gym memberships...
Not sure what $50 million will achieve when an airline spends over $4 billion a year on fuel.

It sure would be a long reigning emperor, Little Napoleon will have nearly chalked up his own century by 2050. Will Qantas have a new fleet by then Patrick?

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/responsible-thing-to-do-qantas-pledges-zero-net-emissions-by-2050-20191110-p5394d.html

FCMC

11th Nov 2019, 02:52

We had to send out a well fed Head of Engineering and the only idiot left in the village
Thats the funniest thing I've read all day, but seriously I believe he is a great bloke but is being somewhat suppressed
by upper management! If it were up to him I think the EBA would be signed long ago without the drawn out games of the board!

Australopithecus

11th Nov 2019, 03:24

I am be bemused at that story. It is utter crap on the face of it. Qantas can’t plan three years down the road, let alone thirty. And what if those selfish pilots don’t take a pay cut to fund it?

Oh well, the way that actual climate change is accelerating faster than the average predictions means that in 30 years airlines will be much smaller than they are now,, so that’ll take care of some of the 12 million tonnes

Rated De

11th Nov 2019, 06:16

I am be bemused at that story. It is utter crap on the face of it. Qantas can’t plan three years down the road, let alone thirty.

It is crap, just like terminal decline, RedQ, JQ HK, JQ NZ, moving to Dubai then back to Singapore, Game changing alliances and "first" LN 615 "Dreamliners" when JQ have a fleet of them. It is crap just like "research flights" with unions excluded and all three of the flights claiming to be a "sample".

Little Napoleon is fortunate that ICAO is also big on spin, small on substance.

The ETS has priced carbon with negligible cost impost. (Thanks ICAO)
Doesn't start until 2027 (Thanks ICAO)
Is only for International Airlines (Thanks ICAO)
Airlines can continue growing ASK at around 5-6% per year (Thanks ICAO)
From 2019 CO2 data will be collected yet strangely not disseminated (Thanks again)

Unlike the maritime industry, aviation is NOT transitioning off hydrocarbon fuel. It will be mid-century be close to the largest emitter worldwide.
Most fortunately for airlines like Qantas, it can continue to burn however much hydrocarbon fuel its aging fleet needs.

Of course the best way to actually do something would be to replace an aging four engine international fleet, where CO2 output eclipses the competitors (both on a seat and aggregate basis.)
Much better to have "aspirational puff pieces" in the daily rags claiming that in 30 years time something will be different while the "externality" of pollution is borne by others.

Spin over substance, it is the ICAO and Qantas way.

aeroaustralis

15th Nov 2019, 02:24

Tip of the iceberg?afr.com - Qantas faces $325,000 underpayment allegationsSorry can't post link.

V-Jet

16th Nov 2019, 02:17

Here is a fantastic summary of the LTCM (Long Term Capital Management) collapse. It has relevance for every collapse from Rome, Nazi Germany and of course that other over blown 'leader' we all love so much:

With multi-billions of losses and running the prospect of ruining the financial system LTCM was bailed out by the Federal Reserve and a consortium of dealers – the first and only time in history that a hedge fund has had to be bailed out by the US’s supreme financial authority.

So what went wrong? Was it Meriwether? Hubris? Bad luck? In fact, none of the three. Meriwether, indeed, appears to have been a good guy: “When you’re that successful people build up myths around you – the Master of the Universe thing, Meriwether is a very nice guy but kind of quiet, not bombastic at all and his decision making was consensus driven.”

The weakness at LTCM was the lack of cognitive diversity. Running on pure talent was not enough. The men behind LTCM had studied at the same schools, learned or taught each other the same theories and shared the same blind spots. LTCM would have done better to fire a couple of partners and hire a landscape gardener for an opposing point of view. All these guys had 160 IQs – it was like a meeting of the fathers of financial theory. But they were all the same. We were missing the dissenting point of view.

By 1998, the company had equity of $4.7bn but was running off-balance sheet derivative positions with a notional value of $1.25 trillion over 106 different strategies. Statistically speaking, they could not all fail. What happened was, they all failed at the same time.

With leverage we were getting brilliant returns on equity and it was impossible to lose money on all of the strategies at the same time. Statistically that was true. But there was a thread that ran through all of them and created a conditional correlation. The thread was they were all short volatility.”

When the market moved against it the whole thing shifted at once. Its lack of diverse thinking was its weakness – and it came up against a ruthless market. There was no denying Wall Street’s piranhas.

Street garbage

16th Nov 2019, 05:00

Tip of the iceberg?afr.com - Qantas faces $325,000 underpayment allegationsSorry can't post link.
I heard from an Engineer this week that the figure is closer to $31 mil....

Rated De

16th Nov 2019, 07:40

I heard from an Engineer this week that the figure is closer to $31 mil....

Given Little Napoleon claimed to have made the decision all by himself on 29 October 2011, this ought be in his purview too,
His omnipotence is known to all.

It remains an interesting study into just how these "errors" due complexity of the payment structures always results in underpayment.

Asturias56

16th Nov 2019, 10:46

"It remains an interesting study into just how these "errors" due complexity of the payment structures always results in underpayment."

When working in a large multi-national company I once put a similar question to a (relatively) friendly face in HR.

HR & Finance are judged as everyone else on "performance" - a major item is sticking to (or coming in under) budget. Thus in any situation that allows for choice it is very tempting to go the cheapest route - this may not be a major decision on that item but it may gain you some shuffle space if something else in the future unexpectedly goes wrong. The absolute maximum you can expect is what is in the policy - and normally you will get (a lot or a little) less depending on how many "decisions" are required.
.
It's not nice but it's human nature in a system that measures people by "metrics" and "output".

V-Jet

16th Nov 2019, 22:11

Whilst I have no doubt of the validity of the ‘absolute maximum’ comment (except in the case of Elaine etc) I think it’s reasonable to point out that very few would approach their manager and complain about overpayment, even fewer to a regulatory authority. Statistics are likely to be skewed towards underpayment, in other words.

The famous BA story/myth? springs to mind where a SYD-AKL-SYD shuttle service was cancelled but the accommodation and allowances continued to be paid. On realising this, enterprising crew were apparently sent from SYD to the hotel in AKL to collect the cash.

Asturias56

17th Nov 2019, 08:07

At the same multi-national a colleague who was moved to another office discovered he had been substantially over-payed (over $ 7000) in moving and relocation allowances.

He then tried to pay it back - he was eventually hauled in and told to "stop making trouble" by HR - of course 18 months later they came and demanded he pay it back INSTANTLY and suggested he had been totally dishonest.

Wisely he'd kept it separate and just wrote them a cheque - and quit for another company 3 weeks later. Did wonders for morale around the section

Spring_water

19th Nov 2019, 00:00

Street garbage

19th Nov 2019, 08:10

Did anyone read the ASX QF investor publication today..?. (Link from “in the news email”. - Investor Day.)

Reading it may solve some of the dribble that gets posted on here.

Page 42 on fleet reinvestment. FY21 2x B789. Just quietly slotted in the long document.

Interesting read......
Yep, depressing reading, I especially like the section on Page 43 for the period 2023-2027 "up to 63 new narrowbody aircraft OR 21 new widebody aircraft". By 2027 QF will need both- replacement for the A330 (what is the dispatch reliability at the moment?) and 737-8's (the VXA will be 26/27 years old by then).
Pity the next CEO.

Rated De

19th Nov 2019, 09:54

Yep, depressing reading, I especially like the section on Page 43 for the period 2023-2027 "up to 63 new narrowbody aircraft OR 21 new widebody aircraft". By 2027 QF will need both- replacement for the A330 (what is the dispatch reliability at the moment?) and 737-8's (the VXA will be 26/27 years old by then).
Pity the next CEO.

This is precisely the problem: ZERO strategic ability.

139 pages of rubbish.
Qantas may take lots of plastic off their aircraft, but the stark reality remains abundantly clear: Their fleet is inefficient and overdue for replacement.
The inner circle stand close together and jerk.

Crash8

19th Nov 2019, 10:28

Page 42 on fleet reinvestment. FY21 2x B789. Just quietly slotted in the long document.

Interesting read......

Are these not No’s 13&14 already annnounced, slated for delivery July 2020?

Window heat

19th Nov 2019, 12:42

"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

Do you even work in this industry? It appears to me that you are neither a pilot or a business person, as you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Rated De

22nd Nov 2019, 20:14

With the Dubai airshow complete and a self imposed deadline, will Little Napoleon and the carpet baggers at Qantas be revealed as the mystery shopper of new jets?

Might make a mockery of the "negotiation" with Safe Lite AIPA if the order was signed...

Chocks Away

23rd Nov 2019, 06:14

A Tim Clark interview on the A380 (https://www.airlineratings.com/news/emirates-tim-clark-slams-airlines-poor-use-a380/) sheds alot of light on it's future and worth.
I tend to agree on a few points and consider it will have it's "day in the sun" again, as airports become more retrained and trunk route traffic grows... but for the QF fleet?

SecretAngel

23rd Nov 2019, 08:04

I've always thought that VLAs made sense for QF - whether 747 or A380. There are a stack of high volume, long haul routes where, because of time zone shifts and distance, only a few windows make sense for the business market (LAX, DFW, LHR etc). No point running two or three smaller planes, when you can fill a single larger plane.

Obviously, the 787 and Sunrise, if it happens, starts to break down that logic a bit.

Asturias56

23rd Nov 2019, 15:40

The only trouble with that analysis is that that's what QF have done for years and the LH international network has contracted steadily.

When you're a relatively high cost airline competing with low cost airlines you have to be able to differentiate enough to be able to charge the premium needed- and TBH I'm not sure Qantas have manged that very well.

Blueskymine

23rd Nov 2019, 23:02

The bigger hub airlines make their money moving westerners through their hubs to their onward destinations.

Westerners don’t particularly like dropping in to these hubs, (except Singapore or perhaps Hong Kong pre revolution) but it’s a means to the end.

Where western airlines can compete is point to point with a smaller aircraft bypassing the hubs with the smaller originating traffic.

Once there is equipment that can do it, and the western airlines all catch on, the hubs will be busted and the mid hub market will be moving their own and developing country originating traffic around.

The best way to see the Middle East is at 38,000 feet at .84.

The 380 doesn’t work in the west, but it works brilliantly sub 10 hours from a hub like Dubai with an 80% load factor.

Ken Borough

24th Nov 2019, 02:04

The best way to see the Middle East is at 38,000 feet at .84.

:D:D:D. :D:D:D. :D:D:D. :D:D:D.

Asturias56

24th Nov 2019, 07:43

"Once there is equipment that can do it, and the western airlines all catch on, the hubs will be busted"

Only if the price is equivalent - people will put themselves through some amazingly uncomfortable hoops to save a hundred dollars.

Also you have to assume you are going to serve a lot of the current spokes. In the UK you have a choice - you can fly to Heathrow and connect with BA or QF or you can fly direct from your local airport in many cases to Australia via the Gulf. Only a lunatic would choose to change planes in Heathrow rather than Dubai, Abu Dhabi etc. Emirates alone flies to 6 UK destinations.

If you see the 787/A350 as "smaller" then maybe you can add some of these locations but will they generate enough traffic to support a non-stop service?

dragon man

24th Nov 2019, 07:50

IMO Qantas will happily leave the punters who want to save a few hundred dollars to other carriers they will charge a 30% premium and probably operate with a 90/95 load factor if Perth/London is anything to go by.

Asturias56

24th Nov 2019, 15:44

It'll all be people burning their airmiles if you ask me................ but it's probably a reasonable step for Qantas to take

Problem is you offer non-stop then you are restricted to traffic to/from Australia only and you are competing with other airlines - QF won't have a monopoly on non-stop to/from Australia if someone else can make it pay as well.

Rated De

9th Dec 2019, 05:14

Or as one a2 Milk observer mused, “all reward, no risk”.

Seems Dear Carla learned a thing or two gouging from the Qantas trough.
Little Napoleon is a furlong ahead in the all reward zero risk stakes...
With the self imposed deadline rapidly approaching, book makers have shortened the odds of another calendar year of Little Napoleon's reign and not an aircraft order in sight.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/all-reward-no-risk-jayne-hrdlicka-s-lucrative-stint-at-a2-milk-20191209-p53ia3.html

Rated De

13th Dec 2019, 03:30

Qantas has not yet placed a binding order

Hold the press, the calendar year ends with not an order, a commitment or anything else...

Just column inches for the scrap book and something for Little Napoleon's new favourite to publish, thanks Patrick.

Global Aviator

13th Dec 2019, 05:16

How many more QF threads can you tie off with the same utterances Mr De?

V-Jet

13th Dec 2019, 08:54

How many more QF threads can you tie off with the same utterances Mr De?

As many as Wee Napoleon provides the impetus for, I would suggest!

As they say in journalism 'the story that keeps on giving'. Would, that it be different:(

Rated De

14th Dec 2019, 01:24

"Management successfully juiced two and a half years’ worth of PR gimmicks (https://www.smh.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p532d8) that distracted from Qantas’ chronic fleet underinvestment," he said. "Now pilots will be cast as villains. You have got to admire the gall.”

Suffice to say, Mr Ferguson won't be attending selected analyst briefings nor receiving a Christmas card.

He joins the International Council of Clean Transportation and fund manager Mr Roger Montgomery calling Qantas for what it is: Negligent.

Chronic under investment in fleet is a result of not a solitary aircraft order in over a decade.

With the sun setting on sunrise...

Qantas need a rudder.

Street garbage

14th Dec 2019, 02:55

How many more QF threads can you tie off with the same utterances Mr De?
How many posts can you type and say nothing factual or nothing that contributes to the discussion.
Take the log out of your own eye

dragon man

16th Dec 2019, 05:24

I don’t know if this is a bit of a thread wandering post , but it is to me highly amusing. Remember the last 787 delivery , the one with the 100 year anniversary logo? Well, it has a hydraulic problem that needs the aircraft to be jacked for gear swings. Qantas don’t have those jacks they had to bring them from Air New Zealand. I’m told it needed a lot of complete gear cycles however they are limited in the number that can be completed each day. It’s been on the ground since the 9.12.19 causing daily cancellations.

Rated De

16th Dec 2019, 05:38

Qantas don’t have those jacks they had to bring them from Air New Zealand. I’m told it needed a lot of complete gear cycles however they are limited in the number that can be completed each day. It’s been on the ground since the 9.12.19 causing daily cancellations.

As Geoffrey Dixon ordered the aircraft and Little Napoleon is yet to order his first, "corporate knowledge" being what it is, there is likely nobody who knew they needed spares and support.
Give Little Napoleon some time, strategic decisions with supported aircraft are not his forte, ask the Diversity Managers at Qantas and they won't know either.

Street garbage

17th Dec 2019, 04:20