QF to shed 2000 jobs
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have stated on other threads, whilst ever QF mainline is recruiting cadets. The prospects for mainline pilots is good.
2009 Cadet recruitment continues thru 2008.
MC
2009 Cadet recruitment continues thru 2008.
MC
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Away
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numbers are rounded, mostly up:
Sydney to LAX is roughly 13.5 hours flying.
Fuel burn of 9 tonnes an hour, averaged out, makes for 120 tonnes burn.
120 tonnes equals 120,000 kilograms.
If a barrel of oil is around 160 litres, and the SG is .80, a barrel of oil equals around 128 kilograms.
How many barrels, at 128 kilos a barrel, do you get from 120,000 kilos, the Sydney to LAX fuel burn?
About 937.5 barrels, which at US$150/barrel equates to around US$141,000.00.
Numbers, numbers, numbers.
Lot of variables, but that's about right.
There are other cost involved in operating a plane from A to B so don't get stuck on $140 grand as a figure, but, if we're comparing apples to apples, I guess the airlines are making bank with the fuel levy's they charge.
Big bank...
Sydney to LAX is roughly 13.5 hours flying.
Fuel burn of 9 tonnes an hour, averaged out, makes for 120 tonnes burn.
120 tonnes equals 120,000 kilograms.
If a barrel of oil is around 160 litres, and the SG is .80, a barrel of oil equals around 128 kilograms.
How many barrels, at 128 kilos a barrel, do you get from 120,000 kilos, the Sydney to LAX fuel burn?
About 937.5 barrels, which at US$150/barrel equates to around US$141,000.00.
Numbers, numbers, numbers.
Lot of variables, but that's about right.
There are other cost involved in operating a plane from A to B so don't get stuck on $140 grand as a figure, but, if we're comparing apples to apples, I guess the airlines are making bank with the fuel levy's they charge.
Big bank...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoff Dixon
I feel I have a sense as to why 'aviator's_anonymous' made the comment about Geoff Dixon.
It must be remembered however that QF is one of the few airlines world wide that is in good fiscal health. Many are not and, not suprisingly, many of the lemons are directed and managed by people that have little understanding of the industry and market their working in.
Just because you have the letters 'MBA' after your name does not mean you can manage a business. Let's be clear with this. One has to understand the business one is in before one can manage it well. There are no shortage of examples of company directors and managers that come into a business with inapropriate skills, experience and qualifications and turn the business on its head.
I have been in two such situations in my life time and it's no fun. With retrospect it reminds me of a scene from Monty Python. I recall an interview with Dick Smith from the 1980s where he said, in relation to what makes a good manager, that a person has either got what it takes or they haven't, and no ammount of training will ever make a good manager if they don't have the inherent mind set and personality in the first place. Having some experience and qualifications in this area, I concur. I have had the disspleasure over the past 33 years of wittnessing some managers that will never make 'managers' as long as they draw fresh air.
I do however wonder why Geoff is still there post the 'Airline Partners' takeover attempt that he touted the virtues of at the time. Former QF Chairman Margaret Jackson fell on her sword and it beats me why Geoff Dixon did not have to follow suit. It also beats me why the Australian Securities & Investment Commission has not taken him to task over his role during the take over attempt. I guess it has its reasons.
If I was a QF share holder I would be asking some blunt and pointed questions of Mr Dixon at the next QF Annual General Meeting about his stance and advice to shareholders during this period.
The proof of the puding is in the eating however, and this is that QF is profitable and Dixon wishes to keep it that way. He appears to have a good sense as to what the market will do and appears to at all times attempt to position QF in such a way as to be able to ride out storms.
Having had two retrenchments in my life, I do however feel very much for those that will lose their jobs. It isn't pleasent.
It must be remembered however that QF is one of the few airlines world wide that is in good fiscal health. Many are not and, not suprisingly, many of the lemons are directed and managed by people that have little understanding of the industry and market their working in.
Just because you have the letters 'MBA' after your name does not mean you can manage a business. Let's be clear with this. One has to understand the business one is in before one can manage it well. There are no shortage of examples of company directors and managers that come into a business with inapropriate skills, experience and qualifications and turn the business on its head.
I have been in two such situations in my life time and it's no fun. With retrospect it reminds me of a scene from Monty Python. I recall an interview with Dick Smith from the 1980s where he said, in relation to what makes a good manager, that a person has either got what it takes or they haven't, and no ammount of training will ever make a good manager if they don't have the inherent mind set and personality in the first place. Having some experience and qualifications in this area, I concur. I have had the disspleasure over the past 33 years of wittnessing some managers that will never make 'managers' as long as they draw fresh air.
I do however wonder why Geoff is still there post the 'Airline Partners' takeover attempt that he touted the virtues of at the time. Former QF Chairman Margaret Jackson fell on her sword and it beats me why Geoff Dixon did not have to follow suit. It also beats me why the Australian Securities & Investment Commission has not taken him to task over his role during the take over attempt. I guess it has its reasons.
If I was a QF share holder I would be asking some blunt and pointed questions of Mr Dixon at the next QF Annual General Meeting about his stance and advice to shareholders during this period.
The proof of the puding is in the eating however, and this is that QF is profitable and Dixon wishes to keep it that way. He appears to have a good sense as to what the market will do and appears to at all times attempt to position QF in such a way as to be able to ride out storms.
Having had two retrenchments in my life, I do however feel very much for those that will lose their jobs. It isn't pleasent.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney
Age: 62
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas name will survive but low-cost fares are over | smh.com.au
Good Article - I think says it all!
Good Article - I think says it all!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does indeed Grndhog, but where to from here? This is reality, and we all suspected this would be the case from the day JQ was born. So what about 2,000 odd QF pilots? What do you do with them? They are not going to take a pay cut, and you can hardly ask a JQ Captain to fly with a QF F/O who is making X amount of dollars more than him/her and expect a happy flight deck. I hope I live long enough to see what happens here, and I am sure as hell glad I flew when I did.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine for Qantas and Jetstar pilots to fly together it would have to be under the Group Opportunity List, in which case Qantaslink is also meant to be a part of.
Cheers
Cheers
Last edited by teggun; 20th Jul 2008 at 09:38.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before everyone gets too excited I'd have a read of a little piece of Legislation titled "The Qantas Sale Act". 
(e) prohibit Qantas from taking any action to bring about a change of its company name to a name that does not include the expression “Qantas”; and
(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport passenger services under a name other than: (i) its company name; or
(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression “Qantas”;
(e) prohibit Qantas from taking any action to bring about a change of its company name to a name that does not include the expression “Qantas”; and
(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport passenger services under a name other than: (i) its company name; or
(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression “Qantas”;
(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression “Qantas”
Photos: Airbus A330-202 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As this is a rumour network - i'll pass on what the TL refueller told me the other day-
JQ to pick up a QF 332 in November to possibly facilitate Southern Europe flights - I take no responsability for the veracity of this - see the refueler and ask him yourself.
On another note I agree with Keg.
787s should be introduced by QF to replace the 76 and 734.
The upshot of this would be all 330s to JQ and subsequently the 380s.
JQ to pick up a QF 332 in November to possibly facilitate Southern Europe flights - I take no responsability for the veracity of this - see the refueler and ask him yourself.
On another note I agree with Keg.
787s should be introduced by QF to replace the 76 and 734.
The upshot of this would be all 330s to JQ and subsequently the 380s.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no logical reason for the 787 to go to Jetstar.
As Keg has stated if Jetstar cannot make good money under the LCC model with 767's, the business is too marginal for the capital investment.
If the Jetstar model is profitable using the 767, then logic would suggest you would keep your premium passengers happy by utilising the new aircraft (787) on premium services for reliability, comfort, prestige purposes. Do backpackers really care if they get to the pool bar 1 hour late or if the aircraft looks a bit shabby. They just want cheap fares.
The Qantas brand has been damaged so badly of late with Classic 747s, tired 767's etc. You could fix the image in a very short space of time by introducing quality new product like 787's and a380's enmasse.
It makes sense. Therefore I believe Dixon will do the opposite.
As Keg has stated if Jetstar cannot make good money under the LCC model with 767's, the business is too marginal for the capital investment.
If the Jetstar model is profitable using the 767, then logic would suggest you would keep your premium passengers happy by utilising the new aircraft (787) on premium services for reliability, comfort, prestige purposes. Do backpackers really care if they get to the pool bar 1 hour late or if the aircraft looks a bit shabby. They just want cheap fares.
The Qantas brand has been damaged so badly of late with Classic 747s, tired 767's etc. You could fix the image in a very short space of time by introducing quality new product like 787's and a380's enmasse.
It makes sense. Therefore I believe Dixon will do the opposite.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it all the Qantas Group 787s will be flown by Qantas Group pilots.
I believe that the Qantas Group has tasked a team of pilots, engineers and sim experts to put together the blueprint for the way that 787 operations will be handled within the Qantas Group for the next 25 years.
I personally know several 777 Captains who have been employed by the Qantas Group and I hear there will be a good number more. As the Qantas Group has a significant experience gap in this area these "outside" pilots will be needed to ensure the Qantas Group AOC amendment for the 787 is built on solid foundations.
Those DECs apart, it seems likely then that every Qantas Group pilot who wants to fly a 787 will one day get the chance. I wish them well. Looks like it will be fun.
I believe that the Qantas Group has tasked a team of pilots, engineers and sim experts to put together the blueprint for the way that 787 operations will be handled within the Qantas Group for the next 25 years.
I personally know several 777 Captains who have been employed by the Qantas Group and I hear there will be a good number more. As the Qantas Group has a significant experience gap in this area these "outside" pilots will be needed to ensure the Qantas Group AOC amendment for the 787 is built on solid foundations.
Those DECs apart, it seems likely then that every Qantas Group pilot who wants to fly a 787 will one day get the chance. I wish them well. Looks like it will be fun.
Nunc est bibendum
lol. Of course they will be 'group' pilots Sherm. An excerpt from LH EBA8 says that 787s flown in QF livery will be flown under EBA8. It doesn't say 'who' but at least they'll be appropriately remunerated.
I'm not sure what the 'experience gap' is that you're talking about though!?! Boeing twins? Nope, lots of experience with those. Introduction of new aircraft? Nope, A330 and A380 in recent times. ETOPS? Nope, one of the early proponents of it. Not saying that the 777 experience isn't welcome or needed but that's a very different thing to QF not having the experience.
Rabbitwear, of course there are enough to go around and I'm sure that both J* and QF need the airframes. The question is where should they go first. It appears insane to leave old, clapped out (but highly loveable for the drivers) 767s on the 'premium' service whilst the low cost carrier upgrades from a relatively new and efficient type in the A330 to an even newer and more efficient type. Surely the return on the airframe is better by replacing the fuel guzzlers first on the premium service. As I said earlier, if the A330 isn't making money on the international services with J* but the 787 will then it'll still be a wafer thin profit. Imagine the increased profit if they replaces the 767 instead with the significantly lower costs of the 787.
What would I know though. I'm just a pilot.
I'm not sure what the 'experience gap' is that you're talking about though!?! Boeing twins? Nope, lots of experience with those. Introduction of new aircraft? Nope, A330 and A380 in recent times. ETOPS? Nope, one of the early proponents of it. Not saying that the 777 experience isn't welcome or needed but that's a very different thing to QF not having the experience.
Rabbitwear, of course there are enough to go around and I'm sure that both J* and QF need the airframes. The question is where should they go first. It appears insane to leave old, clapped out (but highly loveable for the drivers) 767s on the 'premium' service whilst the low cost carrier upgrades from a relatively new and efficient type in the A330 to an even newer and more efficient type. Surely the return on the airframe is better by replacing the fuel guzzlers first on the premium service. As I said earlier, if the A330 isn't making money on the international services with J* but the 787 will then it'll still be a wafer thin profit. Imagine the increased profit if they replaces the 767 instead with the significantly lower costs of the 787.
What would I know though. I'm just a pilot.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What ceases to amaze me is that you Qantas pilots cannot see the writing on the wall!! Jetstar will be doing all the expansion at the expense of mainline pilots. Get with the times you guys (and gals). I flew with a Qantas DEC the other day who has been with you guys for 20 years, and even he said that its time to move on. Once the expansion is complete they will just repaint the airframes in Qantas colours!!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dubai
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not trying to be an assh0le either. It is very frustrating to watch my mates who have been with you for many years pulling there hair out with the expansion of Jetstar.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mostly at home
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BR
This wall ... er is that like the mythical Big Picture?
or
The 5 year plan that is issued every Wednesday?
What may seem obvious to you today could just as obviously be totally wrong in 10 years time .......
N
This wall ... er is that like the mythical Big Picture?
or
The 5 year plan that is issued every Wednesday?
What may seem obvious to you today could just as obviously be totally wrong in 10 years time .......
N