IFAM

[Troo believer]

International Freight Assistance Mechanism.
https://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/5860/IFAM%20Supported%20Flights%20-%20Outbound%20schedule.pdf.aspx
Have a look at how many of these contracts have been awarded to foreign government owned national or supported carriers and you’d have to wonder WTF is going on with the Federal Government’s idiotic policy of dishing out money that leaves the shores of Australia for good during these difficult times. I find it galling to see the likes of Air New Zealand flying 787s between BNE and LAX loaded with freight yet Qantas aircraft sit on the ground in BNE with staff on job keeper.
United Airlines receiving many billions of dollars to stay afloat flying freight across the Pacific with an extension of the contract. Could you imagine this in reverse? No f”*k **g way. As usual this government sells out its people in the name of economic rationalism. Thanks SCOMO and friends for your support. How much tax have we paid as a collective pilot group? This is how you return the favour. Miserable pathetic spineless bureaucrats selling out to the lowest SUBSIDISED tender. What a joke.

[TWOTBAGS]

While it is galling i'll give you the way this has played out and it has nothing to do with any one airline.

Its not the government that's selling us out, its the government trying to help exporters an the hierarchy at the big Q with their head in the sand about it. Logistics pipelines have been reliant upon underbelly space and as time has progressed its now that QF flag out to Atlas their long haul freighters and there are only two 767 all cargo aircraft left in the country. The difference is between OpEx and CapEx on a balance sheet and no one in this county wants to commit to a contract long enough for an operator to spend the CapEx on getting a main deck freighter. This honestly is the crux of it, nobody in the higher levels is prepared to accept the responsibility for CapEx when the risk analysis cant see past 18 months.

I have contacts right now that that have tonnages available for transport in both directions 36T in the belly of 330 of 51T in a 787 would make a difference but Q are seeking a premium that is not achievable in the market.

Its also exporters that for years have been paying below market rates for years that cant get it through their head and freight forwarders who change 20T payloads hours before departure to save themselves $1200 on a 20T load that cost us the taxpayer $50k in subsidies.

The contracts are not below costs, the big Q is being very Linda Evangelista in this respect that they don't get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day an hour yet they have the most fuel efficient widebodies that have plenty of green time that could do the job at the cost of fuel/LLP's and enroutes......... but they wont, and thats with fuel at <$400 a ton.

So please dont blame the govt, they are trying to save the perishable exporters and help them get product to market, instead shine the light at the guys that are too busy trying to play one state govt off against the other so they can move their HQ. As Winston Churchill stated "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

[Troo believer]

While it is galling i'll give you the way this has played out and it has nothing to do with any one airline.

Its not the government that's selling us out, its the government trying to help exporters an the hierarchy at the big Q with their head in the sand about it. Logistics pipelines have been reliant upon underbelly space and as time has progressed its now that QF flag out to Atlas their long haul freighters and there are only two 767 all cargo aircraft left in the country. The difference is between OpEx and CapEx on a balance sheet and no one in this county wants to commit to a contract long enough for an operator to spend the CapEx on getting a main deck freighter. This honestly is the crux of it, nobody in the higher levels is prepared to accept the responsibility for CapEx when the risk analysis cant see past 18 months.

I have contacts right now that that have tonnages available for transport in both directions 36T in the belly of 330 of 51T in a 787 would make a difference but Q are seeking a premium that is not achievable in the market.

Its also exporters that for years have been paying below market rates for years that cant get it through their head and freight forwarders who change 20T payloads hours before departure to save themselves $1200 on a 20T load that cost us the taxpayer $50k in subsidies.

The contracts are not below costs, the big Q is being very Linda Evangelista in this respect that they don't get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day an hour yet they have the most fuel efficient widebodies that have plenty of green time that could do the job at the cost of fuel/LLP's and enroutes......... but they wont, and thats with fuel at <$400 a ton.

So please dont blame the govt, they are trying to save the perishable exporters and help them get product to market, instead shine the light at the guys that are too busy trying to play one state govt off against the other so they can move their HQ. As Winston Churchill stated "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
You missed my point entirely.
The other airlines that win these contracts are being subsidised by their own governments so they can afford to under cut an airline such as Qantas that’s receiving SFA support. Do you honestly believe that the other players are losing their own money flying these contracts? Of course not. They’re being backed by their governments and by the fact that they don’t have stand down provisions in their respective terms and conditions so hence this distortion of costs goes against the likes of Qantas. Once again we’ve been conned and lay down on an uneven playing field full of bull****.
Air New Zealand received a 900 million dollar government loan. What did our airlines get. Zip to support an International operation. What a joke.

[waren9]

NZ Govt is subsidising Air NZ? Links please because aside from NZ's own national wage subsidies to all eligible NZ employers, its news to me. AirNZ has just drawn down on the 1st tranch of a very expensive Govt loan to stay afloat.

[Troo believer]

NZ Govt is subsidising Air NZ? Links please because aside from NZ's own national wage subsidies to all eligible NZ employers, its news to me. AirNZ has just drawn down on the 1st tranch of a very expensive Govt loan to stay afloat.
https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/air-new-zealand-bailed-out-20200320-p54c37
Air New Zealand can’t fail. The loan will be forgiven guaranteed.

[waren9]

https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/air-new-zealand-bailed-out-20200320-p54c37

Link to subsidies please. Not links to loans I already pointed to.

[hotnhigh]

AJ Pty Ltd has done well. Inflated prices so much that even the government knows they are getting ripped off. So hence that’s why Qf isn’t picking up the flights. Jobkeeper is the gift that keeps on giving to aj. Doesn’t have to lift a finger, subsidised reduction in company liabilities. Sco mo should cut it and see how well aj manages.
Canberra is subsidising Qantas quite handsomely and getting nothing in return.

[Transition Layer]

I’ve asked the question before, and I’ll ask it again...

Isn’t JobKeeper a Government subsidy? Without it, Qantas would have to either pay 100% of wages themselves, or make people redundant. If a QF Pilot flies one of these freight flights, and would usually earn say $8000/fortnight, it is only costing QF $6500 to pay that pilot. The wages have been subsidised in the order of 18.75%. But instead it’s easier to keep aircraft on the ground and act as a conduit for Govt handouts :confused:

[dr dre]

I’ve asked the question before, and I’ll ask it again...

Isn’t JobKeeper a Government subsidy? Without it, Qantas would have to either pay 100% of wages themselves, or make people redundant.

Jobkeeper was announced 2 weeks after the stand downs were enacted. When Jobkeeper ceases in March next year it will have zero effect on whether or not employees will be continue to be stood down, and it will not be a trigger for full pay or redundancies. There’s nothing in legislation or EBAs dictating this. For instance Dnata employees were stood down but were not eligible for Jobkeeper as Dnata is foreign owned.

I also believe the $1500 pfn is only for employees stood down for that period. So a QF pilot up for a fortnight earning money in that fortnight would receive zero government subsidy.

[Troo believer]

Link to subsidies please. Not links to loans I already pointed to.
The loan is being under written by the Kiwi government. Go to the market and see how you go for the same amount of capital. If it’s that expensive then find the money at a cheaper rate? What’s that? Yep no we can’t raise that capital independently. Therefore in effect it’s a subsidy.

[waren9]

The loan is being under written by the Kiwi government. Go to the market and see how you go for the same amount of capital. If it’s that expensive then find the money at a cheaper rate? What’s that? Yep no we can’t raise that capital independently. Therefore in effect it’s a subsidy.

AirNZ will indeed be going to the market for capital raising. Any money that needs to be paid back is not a subsidy, regardless of where it came from. No Govt loan will ever be “forgiven” either. It may be converted to an increased shareholding as has happened before. Either way, I see no subsidising going on that would enable AirNZ to operate any more cheaply than it already does.

I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse or you have some sort of prejudice against that airline.

[Troo believer]

AirNZ will indeed be going to the market for capital raising. Any money that needs to be paid back is not a subsidy, regardless of where it come from. No Govt loan will ever be “forgiven” either. It may be converted to an increased shareholding as has happened before. Either way, I see no subsidising going on that would enable AirNZ to operate any more cheaply than it already does.

I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately ignorant or you have some sort of prejudice against that airline.
And this is where a market distortion occurs. Whether it’s AirNZ or the ME3, SingAir it’s all the same. Airlines backed or financed via their respective governments that otherwise would be broke. So the debt could be converted into an increased shareholding if they can’t repay the debt. That’s an implicit guarantee is it not. Didn’t happen to Virgin. It was subject to market forces unlike most airlines on the IFAM list yet our own government thinks that’s fair. It’s an outrage and has been way before Covid high lighted the disparity even more so.

[empacher48]

I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse or you have some sort of prejudice against that airline.

I think just someone who has been stood down since April and hasn't gone on to find anything else useful to do with their time. But yet will blame everyone else for the problems, rather than looking at themselves.

(Yes, I have been stood down since then too and no, I haven't received any government support either).

[Troo believer]

[QUOTE=empacher48;10896506]I think just someone who has been stood down since April and hasn't gone on to find anything else useful to do with their time. But yet will blame everyone else for the problems, rather than looking at themselves.

(Yes, I have been stood down since then too and no, I haven't received any government support either).[/QUOTE
Yes and no likewise. Just sticking up for what’s fair and asking why the Australian Government supports foreign owned government subsidised and or backed airlines over their own.

[aviation_enthus]

Because it’s not about supporting QF/VA. The entire point of IFAM is to get the exports to their destination. Without Singair/EK/Qatar/Etc feeding freight from Australian destinations into their wider network, those exports would rot in Australia.

Whether QF or VA should be receiving the money, is entirely missing the point. VA only flew to LAX. QF also had a relatively limited international network within Asia (compared to big freight carriers). As other posters have mentioned, cargo has not been a big part of Aus airline ops.

Sometimes it’s about more than just “support Aussie airlines”.

[Troo believer]

Because it’s not about supporting QF/VA. The entire point of IFAM is to get the exports to their destination. Without Singair/EK/Qatar/Etc feeding freight from Australian destinations into their wider network, those exports would rot in Australia.

Whether QF or VA should be receiving the money, is entirely missing the point. VA only flew to LAX. QF also had a relatively limited international network within Asia (compared to big freight carriers). As other posters have mentioned, cargo has not been a big part of Aus airline ops.

Sometimes it’s about more than just “support Aussie airlines”.
Just remember that just supporting some Aussie Airlines is not some individual entities but thousands of men and women that have lost their jobs, their ability to earn an income and in some cases their families too.
What have you given up? What have you lost?
Some of the airlines mentioned are using passenger aircraft for IFAM not just dedicated freighters. The federal government could kill two birds with one stone by supporting Aussie’s without a job and future whilst assisting with moving freight. Charity begins at home does it not?

[Beer Baron]

Because it’s not about supporting QF/VA. The entire point of IFAM is to get the exports to their destination.
You are quite right but that is also a very narrow view to take. Consider the multi-billion dollar submarine fleet the federal government is buying. They are spending billions more to build them in Australia in order to support Australian industry. The main goal is to get a fleet of new subs but the secondary benefit is to support the industry in Australia. The IFAM should be looked at in the same way.

In a circular economy the money that you put into Australian companies and employees gets recycled back to support many more Australian jobs, it has a multiplying effect. Once you send that money offshore it then does nothing for the country.

[lc_461]

It's possible that QF and VA were 'offered' work prior to the formal IFAM and either declined for whatever reason, or couldn't make the numbers stack up.
At the start of the pandemic QF did a number of charter/repatriation flights which obviously weren't farmed out to the highest bidder. (eg from Wuhan/Tokyo etc)

[dr dre]

Consider the multi-billion dollar submarine fleet the federal government is buying. They are spending billions more to build them in Australia in order to support Australian industry. The main goal is to get a fleet of new subs but the secondary benefit is to support the industry in Australia. The IFAM should be looked at in the same way.

The airline industry hasn’t bribed and lobbied the government as effectively as the weapons manufacturing industry I’m afraid.

[hotnhigh]

AJ pty Ltd isn't interested. It doesn't fit the mantra!
Rather have fleets entirely grounded and use psychological warfare on staff, rather than attempt to keep it ticking it over.
https://australianaviation.com.au/2020/10/samoa-turns-to-air-new-zealand-for-australia-repatriation/

[Derfred]

I think this has been pointed out quite clearly previously, but I’ll say it again. NZ can’t stand down its crew without pay like Australia can.

That makes the operating cost of an idle B787 vs a flying B787 completely different between the two airlines.

If you are paying your crew to sit at home anyway, your aircraft becomes a lot cheaper to fly. So of course you’ll win the tender!

That argument doesn’t put any food on the table of the stood-down Aussie crews, but it has helped save redundancies, and has so far saved QF from financial meltdown.

Maybe down the track we’ll work out whether stand-down provisions were to the greater detriment or benefit of Aussie pilots.

Having said that, it’s an appalling look that our Govt is comfortable with the fact that every international flight in and out of Australia is conducted by someone else.

No matter how you look at it, from a pilot perspective, just a couple of sims and a couple of flights every 3 months could keep your eye in the game and maybe just enough for skill retention and mental health relief.

Beyond that, 6-12 months out of the game is very difficult. I’ve never done it before, but friends with medical problems have. For 1500 pilots to be out of the game for 12-24 months or more is going to become a monumental problem. AIPA has been trying to communicate that to the Govt, but sadly it seems to be on deaf ears so far.

[aviation_enthus]

Just remember that just supporting some Aussie Airlines is not some individual entities but thousands of men and women that have lost their jobs, their ability to earn an income and in some cases their families too.
What have you given up? What have you lost?
Some of the airlines mentioned are using passenger aircraft for IFAM not just dedicated freighters. The federal government could kill two birds with one stone by supporting Aussie’s without a job and future whilst assisting with moving freight. Charity begins at home does it not?

Ok I’ll try to be a bit clearer with my point:
- QF/VA didn’t have extensive freight networks pre-Covid.

- just because the government “could” use Australian airlines, doesn’t mean the airlines can do it. For example using Qatar or EK to Europe means access to 20-30 destinations. That’s something a subsidised QF 787 could never do. Even to Asia, yes QF could probably run a 787 to HKG with belly freight, but that’s not the final destination for the entire load. So then what?

- Yes passenger aircraft are being used. A large percentage of cargo was previously carried in the belly of passenger aircraft. Simply put, there are not enough dedicated freighter aircraft to carry the volumes required on a normal day. The 787/777 are probably the best options going around for this given the extra length allows a decent quantity of belly cargo. (EK recently broke their own record and fit 63T of belly cargo on a -300ER) But again refer to my earlier point about a viable network to carry the freight on to its final destination.

- The Aust Govt is providing support to Airline staff. It’s called JobKeeper. The relative “small change” of the IFAM wont stop thousands of staff loosing their jobs. That’s the result of the pandemic.

- of course charity brings at home. It’s the Government’s role to support our country. But that’s not going to stop a harsh reality from coming to all of us in the next 12 months. JobKeeper etc just “kicks the can down the road” and allows Aussie airlines to hold off on making a hard decision to fire staff. Thinking that IFAM is going to save thousands of jobs by only using QF/VA/etc is a dream. I’m sorry but that’s the harsh truth.

- Again IFAM is designed to get high value exports to their destinations. The unfortunate truth means that doesn’t involve using Aussie airlines and staff, because they can’t do the job efficiently (for the reasons stated above).

[Troo believer]

That’s just crap mate. You’ve obviously got skin in the game in the export business. Definitely not a pilot. Explain how an AirNZ 787 or United 777 currently flying across the Pacific under IFAM is able to do it efficiently and cover costs in the current climate? Congress is about to announce a further 25 billion package for US airlines. Do you honestly believe that United would fly a 777 between the West Coast and Oz without government money keeping it afloat? AirNZ 787 flys BNE LAX BNE
Whilst airlines are being SUBSIDISED or bailed out and ours are not then it’s virtually impossible to compete. Australian pilots and engineers should be livid at this disgraceful policy failure.
The Australian Federal Government and bureaucrats in Canberra would rather support foreign airlines over their own. The ME3 are a case in point. Government owned and financed to the tune of billions of dollars. Has Etihad ever made a profit? No. Qatar No. Emirates perhaps but how would you really know.
IFAM was set up to appease the National Party and primary producers. It’s a cynical manipulation taking advantage of significant market distortions and subsidies.
Why have a national airline at all if during times of need it’s bypassed in favour of foreign government owned or subsidised airlines. Peruse the list and tick off whom isn’t government backed. There’s your answer.

[Climb150]

With the price being paid to carry freight right now, United are more than breaking even with their SFO-SYD returns. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?

[waren9]

AirNZ 787 flys BNE LAX BNE

And they could very well be doing LAX-MEL too shortly. Quite how the NZ Govt will view crews laying over in Victoria in the current Covid climate there is anyones guess.

[aviation_enthus]

That’s just crap mate. You’ve obviously got skin in the game in the export business. Definitely not a pilot. Explain how an AirNZ 787 or United 777 currently flying across the Pacific under IFAM is able to do it efficiently and cover costs in the current climate? Congress is about to announce a further 25 billion package for US airlines. Do you honestly believe that United would fly a 777 between the West Coast and Oz without government money keeping it afloat? AirNZ 787 flys BNE LAX BNE
Whilst airlines are being SUBSIDISED or bailed out and ours are not then it’s virtually impossible to compete. Australian pilots and engineers should be livid at this disgraceful policy failure.
The Australian Federal Government and bureaucrats in Canberra would rather support foreign airlines over their own. The ME3 are a case in point. Government owned and financed to the tune of billions of dollars. Has Etihad ever made a profit? No. Qatar No. Emirates perhaps but how would you really know.
IFAM was set up to appease the National Party and primary producers. It’s a cynical manipulation taking advantage of significant market distortions and subsidies.
Why have a national airline at all if during times of need it’s bypassed in favour of foreign government owned or subsidised airlines. Peruse the list and tick off whom isn’t government backed. There’s your answer.

So if Air NZ can fly BNE-LAX then why isn’t Qantas doing it? You keep banging on about how we should be “using national airlines”, but you fail to recognise that QF had the same opportunity to apply for the subsidy as everyone else. QF chose NOT to do those flights....

[hotnhigh]

So if Air NZ can fly BNE-LAX then why isn’t Qantas doing it? You keep banging on about how we should be “using national airlines”, but you fail to recognise that QF had the same opportunity to apply for the subsidy as everyone else. QF chose NOT to do those flights....
Qantas chose to pitch at a price that effectively was ripping the government off!
Thats' how AJ pty Ltd wanted it. The longer the current scenario can be maintained, the longer he can screw down terms and conditions for various groups. It has nothing to do with being as a described national airline, nor what's good for the greater population of the country in the near term.

[Poto]

. QF chose NOT to do those flights....
Yeah...,.Nah....not true.

[aviation_enthus]

Yeah...,.Nah....not true.

Backed up with ........

Got anything other than your opinion?

[Poto]

Backed up with ........

Got anything other than your opinion?
yep But it’s not going on here sorry

[C441]

Qantas chose to pitch at a price that effectively was ripping the government off!
Or maybe Qantas simply applied at a cost that would not see them losing more than they would by not doing it. There would be little point in doing it at a competitive price if it meant adding to the loses they currently make each week.

A couple of 787s went to LAX and back in the last 10 days (one each way). I wonder if they carried anything under the floor.

[Transition Layer]

Or maybe Qantas simply applied at a cost that would not see them losing more than they would by not doing it. There would be little point in doing it at a competitive price if it meant adding to the loses they currently make each week.

A couple of 787s went to LAX and back in the last 10 days (one each way). I wonder if they carried anything under the floor.

Two went across for maintenance, and a different one came back. All sectors were full of under floor freight according to the company email.

[Transition Layer]

Meanwhile here’s another case of Air NZ doing flying that could have been done by QF:

https://australianaviation.com.au/2020/10/samoa-turns-to-air-new-zealand-for-australia-repatriation/

[Troo believer]

Meanwhile here’s another case of Air NZ doing flying that could have been done by QF:

https://australianaviation.com.au/2020/10/samoa-turns-to-air-new-zealand-for-australia-repatriation/

AirNZ has the benefit of a subsidy that’s why it could do these flights.

A subsidy may not be a direct capital infusion or payment but it by the very nature of the government loan guarantee confers a benefit. The same for most of the airlines involved in IFAM.

JAL is the only other airline NOT government owned or backed. United has the benefit at the moment of massive US government loan facilities. All the others are at least majority owned or completely owned by governments. Draw your own conclusions. It’s not hard. Our government has sold us out to the lowest bidder and any flying at the moment would be welcome. COVID-19 has only highlighted the market distortions that have prevailed for years.

The WTO protects primary producers against market distortions and subsidies yet is silent on transportation. Happy to be corrected.

Some interesting reading. Now watch the those with a vested interest refute the facts.
https://fairskies.org

[ElZilcho]

Are QF doing any international flying right now? Freight or otherwise? Genuine question as I don't know... over at Air NZ, ignoring the Aussie Freight flights, we're still doing AKL - LAX, SFO, HKG, PVG, NRT, SIN, ICN along with Tasman and Pac Islands, virtually all freight.

Don't get me wrong, I've been scratching my head as to how we landed BNE (and possibly MEL) Freight contracts, and if I were a QF Pilot stood down on zero pay I'd probably be irate. However, I honestly suspect it was purely a case of "we're already operating Freight flights and have the Crew/Aircraft available" whilst Skippy has stood everyone down.

Financially, I'm not privy to the financials of individual flights. However, we are still burning through cash, just at a reduced rate post redundancies and restructuring. Given Air NZ can't stand down Crew like QF can, it makes sense utilising crew where possible to claw back some of the costs... financially speaking, it might actually be cheaper to not operate these flights and simply stand everyone down as QF have done.

As for the Loan being a "subsidy", well that's a stretch given it's at 7-9% interest. Yes, I expect after the election we're likely to see the Government increase their shareholding in the Airline, but that has its own consequences and implications... as the GM Pilots said at my last refresher "there's no such thing as free money". If we do end up as an SOE, I fear for my redundant colleagues as I doubt we'll be in much of a position to "expand" back to pre-Covid levels for some time.

Honestly, it's a game of survival right now. Aussie Carriers were able to stand crew down, Air NZ has to either pay us to stay at home or make us redundant.. it's no wonder they're chasing freight contracts.

[Troo believer]

What’s that Bro? You can’t afford the interest on the loan. No worries Bro the government’s got this. Thanks Jacinda. Congrats btw on the election.

[Transition Layer]

Are QF doing any international flying right now? Freight or otherwise? Genuine question as I don't know... over at Air NZ, ignoring the Aussie Freight flights, we're still doing AKL - LAX, SFO, HKG, PVG, NRT, SIN, ICN along with Tasman and Pac Islands, virtually all freight.

Don't get me wrong, I've been scratching my head as to how we landed BNE (and possibly MEL) Freight contracts, and if I were a QF Pilot stood down on zero pay I'd probably be irate. However, I honestly suspect it was purely a case of "we're already operating Freight flights and have the Crew/Aircraft available" whilst Skippy has stood everyone down.

Financially, I'm not privy to the financials of individual flights. However, we are still burning through cash, just at a reduced rate post redundancies and restructuring. Given Air NZ can't stand down Crew like QF can, it makes sense utilising crew where possible to claw back some of the costs... financially speaking, it might actually be cheaper to not operate these flights and simply stand everyone down as QF have done.

As for the Loan being a "subsidy", well that's a stretch given it's at 7-9% interest. Yes, I expect after the election we're likely to see the Government increase their shareholding in the Airline, but that has its own consequences and implications... as the GM Pilots said at my last refresher "there's no such thing as free money". If we do end up as an SOE, I fear for my redundant colleagues as I doubt we'll be in much of a position to "expand" back to pre-Covid levels for some time.

Honestly, it's a game of survival right now. Aussie Carriers were able to stand crew down, Air NZ has to either pay us to stay at home or make us redundant.. it's no wonder they're chasing freight contracts.
Fair enough. So if I’m correct, the backing of the NZ taxpayer combined with the backing of the AUS taxpayer, is keeping Air NZ pilots in the sky?

And in terms of the QF Group, it doesn’t explain why the Jetconnect crews in NZ are stood down sitting around doing no flying. What are they being paid?

And yes, the A330 is operating semi-regular freight services to SIN/HKG/NRT/PVG (I think?)

[ElZilcho]

What’s that Bro? You can’t afford the interest on the loan. No worries Bro the government’s got this. Thanks Jacinda. Congrats btw on the election.

What's that mate? Can't afford to pay your staff mate? Just stand em down, and save a fortune on redundancy payouts, Jobkeeper will see 'em right. :ok:

Clearly this is an emotional topic for you. You can attack other Airlines all you want, but they'll each individually do what they can to survive. IF QF (or whichever Airline you fly/flew for) were 51% Government owned and thus given a loan facility I doubt you'd be here on your soapbox complaining about it.

Perhaps the contract should of gone to an Aussie carrier, but were any of them interested? Or was it not worth the cost of gearing back up and recalling crew from stand downs? From the (limited) media I've seen on this side of the ditch, AJ seems quite content to park everything (and everyone) until this is over.

Fair enough. So if I’m correct, the backing of the NZ taxpayer combined with the backing of the AUS taxpayer, is keeping Air NZ pilots in the sky?

And in terms of the QF Group, it doesn’t explain why the Jetconnect crews in NZ are stood down sitting around doing no flying. What are they being paid?

And yes, the A330 is operating semi-regular freight services to SIN/HKG/NRT/PVG (I think?)

Honestly I'm not sure how much the Aussie contracts contribute to the revenue.
All I know is, we downsized to 70% for "post COVID" so at the moment we have a lot of Crew and Aircraft available. Can't stand us down, and too many redundancies would gut the Airline. (Reverse Seniority, would lose all/most A320 FO's). May as well fly freight to help offset costs... some of it's the Aussie Contract, some of it's the NZ Governments contract and the rest is just standard commercial freight. Some of those Freight Flights also have PAX, but it's controlled by Quarantine facility levels.

JetConnect aren't getting paid last I heard. They all "agreed" to be stood down. Currency for them is also going to be an issue I believe as they need to go to AUS for the Sims but then need to Quarantine on return, so it's possible the initial Tasman flying will be done by mainline Pilots as JC slowly stand crew up. But that's just me guessing.

[hotnhigh]

The accountants running the circus have until very recently, failed to apportion the true future training costs of keeping the 787 fleet grounded beyond 180 days. The penny has finally dropped for some of the geniuses. The expectation may well be that getting some flying and continue with a skeleton network of airframes and operational crew would be far smarter than then IR panacea that most have been licking their lips at prior to this point.
Simply put, the smartest guys in the room have underestimated their monumental cost saving strategies. Sure, saved x in the first 6 months, but cost them xxxxxx in the following 12-18.
Finally, word is the feds want LHR, LAX back up and running, but currently hamstrung by state government initiatives(?).
How long will that take to gear up?

[Transition Layer]

The accountants running the circus have until very recently, failed to apportion the true future training costs of keeping the 787 fleet grounded beyond 180 days. The penny has finally dropped for some of the geniuses. The expectation may well be that getting some flying and continue with a skeleton network of airframes and operational crew would be far smarter than then IR panacea that most have been licking their lips at prior to this point.
Simply put, the smartest guys in the room have underestimated their monumental cost saving strategies. Sure, saved x in the first 6 months, but cost them xxxxxx in the following 12-18.
Finally, word is the feds want LHR, LAX back up and running, but currently hamstrung by state government initiatives(?).
How long will that take to gear up?
Bang on!
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/258x148/image_a357f281a70825c3551ddb6ba016f7783724e611.gif

[aviation_enthus]

IFAM is all about getting exports to their destinations. I’m not sure any other explanation will help get this idea through. It’s about helping a different industry maintain jobs in Australia. Which is exactly what you all seem to be banging on about with airline subsidies.....

Subsidies take many forms around the world.
- Qatar received a $2 billion USD “equity injection” in March, mainly due to the continuing blockade from Saudi, UAE, Kuwait etc. I imagine they’ll get more money this year due to Coronavirus.
But.... This money is from their SHAREHOLDERS

- Singapore Airlines raised up to $10 billion USD from capital raising and various debt options, including loans against aircraft. So yes the Singapore Government contributes as a SHAREHOLDER, but they also borrowed significant money against assets.

- CARES package is a loan that comes with some pretty strict conditions on how the company will be run. Retaining employees is only one part of it, director fees, dividends, etc are also limited.
Southwest declined any loan due to the conditions (and not being desperate). Delta also declined a second application due to having better options.

- Lufthansa received money from the German govt, but again this came with significant conditions attached. They were initially resistant to receiving the cash due to the restrictions.

- Air NZ. As has been stated the “loan” being offered is not as competitive as what they may be able to get on the open market. But again it’s been said by Air NZ they considered it a last resort option. It took them until late August to start using the funds.

- Qantas. Has been raising money from shareholders and also debt linked to assets (aircraft). But QF/VA etc have a huge advantage because they can stand down staff without pay. Yes it sucks for the workers, but we are talking about the survival of the company. QF would be in a bad position without the ability to stand down staff.

- The Aus govt already subsidises domestic ops with direct funding. There’s also JobKeeper which is a direct wage subsidy.

My point with all of this is almost all airlines around the world have access to various forms of assistance. That includes QF!!! Stand down plus JobKeeper is an advantage Air NZ doesn’t have.... VA have effectively received a massive leg up by taking on a new owner in the form of Bain. The various advantages of administration and the ability to restructure is something QF can’t do.

Just because it doesn’t take the form you want or expect, doesn’t mean they can’t access various forms of assistance.

Just to add:
- the USA allows international to travel to many countries, their list of restrictions is actually quite small. There’s also minimal restrictions on domestic travel within the US.

- NZ also has high value exports that need to get to market. So I’d imagine the Air NZ flights actually operating have quite a bit of cargo on board.

If you wonder why QF have grounded just about all international ops, look at what the Aus Govt actually allows before you go claiming there’s a conspiracy against QF. The border is effectively closed to all, including Australians. The limited number of flights carrying belly cargo provide more than enough capacity to cover the arrival caps and any outbound traffic. So why would QF/VA want to burn MORE cash in a market that’s effectively dead due to government restrictions??? So it’s much better for them to stand down staff and wait until restrictions are lifted. Common sense would also suggest this path.....

[hotnhigh]

If you wonder why QF have grounded just about all international ops, look at what the Aus Govt actually allows before you go claiming there’s a conspiracy against QF. The border is effectively closed to all, including Australians.

The state governments control the numbers into the respective capitals, not the feds!
A limited number of operational airframes and crew will make jack%$# difference to the long term viability of the airline. In fact, it's dawning on the geniuses that their calculators have malfunctioned in working out the best "cash burn rate" moving forward.

Qantas management has chosen the path and used the smokescreen of government policy to hide what is now slowly proving to be some very dumb and costly decisions.

[Troo believer]

IFAM is all about getting exports to their destinations. I’m not sure any other explanation will help get this idea through. It’s about helping a different industry maintain jobs in Australia. Which is exactly what you all seem to be banging on about with airline subsidies.....

Subsidies take many forms around the world.
- Qatar received a $2 billion USD “equity injection” in March, mainly due to the continuing blockade from Saudi, UAE, Kuwait etc. I imagine they’ll get more money this year due to Coronavirus.
But.... This money is from their SHAREHOLDERS

- Singapore Airlines raised up to $10 billion USD from capital raising and various debt options, including loans against aircraft. So yes the Singapore Government contributes as a SHAREHOLDER, but they also borrowed significant money against assets.

- CARES package is a loan that comes with some pretty strict conditions on how the company will be run. Retaining employees is only one part of it, director fees, dividends, etc are also limited.
Southwest declined any loan due to the conditions (and not being desperate). Delta also declined a second application due to having better options.

- Lufthansa received money from the German govt, but again this came with significant conditions attached. They were initially resistant to receiving the cash due to the restrictions.

- Air NZ. As has been stated the “loan” being offered is not as competitive as what they may be able to get on the open market. But again it’s been said by Air NZ they considered it a last resort option. It took them until late August to start using the funds.

- Qantas. Has been raising money from shareholders and also debt linked to assets (aircraft). But QF/VA etc have a huge advantage because they can stand down staff without pay. Yes it sucks for the workers, but we are talking about the survival of the company. QF would be in a bad position without the ability to stand down staff.

- The Aus govt already subsidises domestic ops with direct funding. There’s also JobKeeper which is a direct wage subsidy.

My point with all of this is almost all airlines around the world have access to various forms of assistance. That includes QF!!! Stand down plus JobKeeper is an advantage Air NZ doesn’t have.... VA have effectively received a massive leg up by taking on a new owner in the form of Bain. The various advantages of administration and the ability to restructure is something QF can’t do.

Just because it doesn’t take the form you want or expect, doesn’t mean they can’t access various forms of assistance.

Just to add:
- the USA allows international to travel to many countries, their list of restrictions is actually quite small. There’s also minimal restrictions on domestic travel within the US.

- NZ also has high value exports that need to get to market. So I’d imagine the Air NZ flights actually operating have quite a bit of cargo on board.

If you wonder why QF have grounded just about all international ops, look at what the Aus Govt actually allows before you go claiming there’s a conspiracy against QF. The border is effectively closed to all, including Australians. The limited number of flights carrying belly cargo provide more than enough capacity to cover the arrival caps and any outbound traffic. So why would QF/VA want to burn MORE cash in a market that’s effectively dead due to government restrictions??? So it’s much better for them to stand down staff and wait until restrictions are lifted. Common sense would also suggest this path.....

From the WTO
Their definition of a subsidy.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/scm_e/subs_e.htm

Qantas did tender on several freight contracts offered through IFAM. No point burning money with a race to the bottom trying to compete with subsidised airlines as mentioned previously. You can’t refute the facts. Shareholders? You mean owners.