QF to shed 2000 jobs
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Downunder
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a good plane...if its not painted silver! One has to wonder why the JQ aircraft go tech so often...barely 48 hours goes by without a tech delay on one of the 6 aircraft...its bad. But dont hear of the same problems at QF...wonder why?? Same engineering dept do both...
Friends that have worked for EK say theirs have the worst reliability in the fleet also.
Friends that have worked for EK say theirs have the worst reliability in the fleet also.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
The QF ones work fine. If all the QF A330's went to J* they would have a fleet mix of 12 X -200's and 10 X -300's. The -200's have ample range to go BKK or HKG-Europe.
With CCQ, and the fact that Jetstar are already operating the type, it seems to me to make a lot of sense. Mind you, I don't have my ego invested in getting my new intenational LCC to work as it should.
With CCQ, and the fact that Jetstar are already operating the type, it seems to me to make a lot of sense. Mind you, I don't have my ego invested in getting my new intenational LCC to work as it should.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to disagree with Capt Kremin, the A330 has its moments as a Airplane. The A320 and A340 are probably the best aircraft in the Airbus fleet that i am aware off. I used to work for an airline that had 30 A330 200 and 300 and they gave us heaps of problems. They do the most weirdest things. But Airlines luv them as they are so efficient to run.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TMAK
Brucek, you cant always take single quotes on their own....keep in mind the same Air NZ CEO only two years ago told all is his airports staff (about 2000 of them) to sign a new EBA or they would be outsourced...and in fact even appointed a company (Swissport) which was only overturned after the staff signed a new deal and some accepted VR.
I have had the disspleasure on two occasions in my life of being a senior manager for companies that considered they had products that 'sold themselves' (nothing short of sex, and water in a drought comes close!), forgot about the people that actualy added value by providing the customer service, and promptly went into liquidation in the process. The anals of corporate failures are littered with such examples, as are the anals of once great airlines that are now unfortunatley no longer.
The link to the article by Bauman is probably more applicable to most of this debate and I would implore fellow rumor-rats to read it.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm cheaper you're cheaper.
Don't want to get into that debate, but isn't there a maths problem somewhere in there?
If fuel and landing\enroute charges is 50% of your costs then to say that another operator is 20% cheaper to run means that you have to be 40% more efficient with the remaining 50%.
Is one 40% lower than the other in the other remaining cost areas?
At the end of the day, who cares.
Don't want to get into that debate, but isn't there a maths problem somewhere in there?
If fuel and landing\enroute charges is 50% of your costs then to say that another operator is 20% cheaper to run means that you have to be 40% more efficient with the remaining 50%.
Is one 40% lower than the other in the other remaining cost areas?
At the end of the day, who cares.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't confuse Direct Operating Costs (or variable cost) with the fully allocated costs (which includes all relevant overheads.
Second, remember that if JQ put in 25% more seats than Qantas and use the aircraft 15% more then that has a direct effect on year-in, year out costs that spreads JQs already lower overheads even thinner. If JQs average journey length is longer then the proportion of costs for landings and of course all cycle-related engineering costs will fall. As a result of these factors yields will of course be lower and it may be that the actual profit margin (in the varying ways it can be measured) would be the same.
No doubt at all though that if Qantas Group had 50 787s right now, then some (say 20) would be used on the Cityflyer routes and 30 on JQI routes with a higher proportion of price sensitive to less price sensitive traffic , leaving the 380 to do the remaining "core" of QF's mainline routes from SYD/MEL to LHR and LAX.
Second, remember that if JQ put in 25% more seats than Qantas and use the aircraft 15% more then that has a direct effect on year-in, year out costs that spreads JQs already lower overheads even thinner. If JQs average journey length is longer then the proportion of costs for landings and of course all cycle-related engineering costs will fall. As a result of these factors yields will of course be lower and it may be that the actual profit margin (in the varying ways it can be measured) would be the same.
No doubt at all though that if Qantas Group had 50 787s right now, then some (say 20) would be used on the Cityflyer routes and 30 on JQI routes with a higher proportion of price sensitive to less price sensitive traffic , leaving the 380 to do the remaining "core" of QF's mainline routes from SYD/MEL to LHR and LAX.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TMAK
Your maths are off mate.
If JQ are getting 15 787s then the first 330 to return to QF won't be until the receipt of 787 #10.
Be prepared however for 40 787s to go to JQ.
Just ask the new CEO.
If not at least QF will get back the A330's one for one from when JQ 787 #7 trhu #12 delivered...or so the plan was anyway.
If JQ are getting 15 787s then the first 330 to return to QF won't be until the receipt of 787 #10.
Be prepared however for 40 787s to go to JQ.
Just ask the new CEO.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Downunder
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Condition lever
You could be right my maths is often off! But I was refering back to the last plan I heard which was:
JQ first step was to get 12 widebody jets in service and then grow to 15.
So the first 6 x 787 would make the fleet 12, then next 6 would be replacements to get the A330 back to QF, then I "assumed" the last 3 would be growth again to 15. A straight jump 6 to 15 is huge in the space of 6-12 months....
In saying that it was a few months since I have heard the latest goss...which seems to be very much up in the air now days...
I wouldnt think of seeing 40 787 go to JQ, unless of course was to do what NZ did with the A320 and paint them in mainline colours and operate them with cheaper subsidary. Keep in mind Joyce will have QF interests as much at heart now as he did JQ before!
Whilst I have no say in this...I still would like to see a dozen 777-300ER flying lower end capacity long haul routes for QF...to replace older 744 and fill gap between A380 and 787-9.
JQ first step was to get 12 widebody jets in service and then grow to 15.
So the first 6 x 787 would make the fleet 12, then next 6 would be replacements to get the A330 back to QF, then I "assumed" the last 3 would be growth again to 15. A straight jump 6 to 15 is huge in the space of 6-12 months....
In saying that it was a few months since I have heard the latest goss...which seems to be very much up in the air now days...
I wouldnt think of seeing 40 787 go to JQ, unless of course was to do what NZ did with the A320 and paint them in mainline colours and operate them with cheaper subsidary. Keep in mind Joyce will have QF interests as much at heart now as he did JQ before!
Whilst I have no say in this...I still would like to see a dozen 777-300ER flying lower end capacity long haul routes for QF...to replace older 744 and fill gap between A380 and 787-9.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Downunder
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What The
I share your furstration at all the figures...but a short answer to "Is one 40% lower than the other in the other remaining cost areas?" would be...yes. Once you remove those major costs, JQ is very much lower cost than QF...the entire head office has less than 200 people including all of, marketing, HR, PR, Operations, Crewing, Airports, finance, you name it...
At an airport with say 20 flights daily, JQ might have 3-4 duty managers revolving thru a shift pattern sharing a small office with a few CSO's, where as QF would have 15-20 managers and a suite of offices....the mind boggles...
As for who cares...not me so much...but Mr Joyce might do come Nov...
At an airport with say 20 flights daily, JQ might have 3-4 duty managers revolving thru a shift pattern sharing a small office with a few CSO's, where as QF would have 15-20 managers and a suite of offices....the mind boggles...
As for who cares...not me so much...but Mr Joyce might do come Nov...
Nunc est bibendum
TMAK, perhaps the small head office is part of the reason that the QF IOC is forever trying to work out how to assist and 'save' the J* operation when it falls over. I wonder if J* are ever billed for the work that QF does in that area? Probably not. Of course though, QF is big and inefficient.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Downunder
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, are you refering to recovery for Int disrupts? the ones caused by somewhat unreliable A330 fleet? Yes JQ have to pay charter rates for QF to operate for them (if that is the solution), or they raise a FIM if its transfer of pax to QF...which will cost more normally than what JQ have taken from the pax. Same applies in reverse of course, when JQ has to operate for QF, like MEL-CNS vv recently. Nothing is for free, despite what many on here think.
Yes of course QF are much bigger and I would never expect it to be anywhere near as lean as JQ (it wouldnt support the full service operation), but do you think the staff/crew and the operation get bang for their buck considering the number of managers everywhere?
The problem at JQ is probably not the size of head office, its experience level (and maybe size) of the Ops centre...IMO anyway.
Yes of course QF are much bigger and I would never expect it to be anywhere near as lean as JQ (it wouldnt support the full service operation), but do you think the staff/crew and the operation get bang for their buck considering the number of managers everywhere?
The problem at JQ is probably not the size of head office, its experience level (and maybe size) of the Ops centre...IMO anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hicksville, Alabama
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or they raise a FIM if its transfer of pax to QF...which will cost more normally than what JQ have taken from the pax.
Yes, of course, JQ sends me a cheque every month for the hundreds of their pax that we book for them to travel on QF every month
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those 40 787 going to Jetstar, how are they going to be branded?
Any reason why not? Pax think it's mainline but the bean counters know it isn't....
Nunc est bibendum
TMAK,
Hell no. QF is one of the most over managed (but ironically under lead) organisations I've come across. However if we're talking about where to allocate aircraft to get an effective return then those sorts of costs should be separated from the discussion. They are quite easy to solve as long as you can cut through the empire building crap.
do you think the staff/crew and the operation get bang for their buck considering the number of managers everywhere?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you think the staff/crew and the operation get bang for their buck considering the number of managers everywhere?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hicksville, Alabama
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just wondering why Starbucks didn't take Geoff's lead and start up a LCC (low cost coffeeshop). Oh, that's right. They didn't have the same skills as the QF/JQ management team.