QF to shed 2000 jobs
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'kegmiester', as you spelt it, would be pronounced kegmeester were it pronounced by a blond-haired, blue-eyed, uber-human! I think you'll find that if it was a pronunciation of kegmeyester you wanted, then the spelling should be kegmeister.
I agree though that there is a distinct market for J* International and that is the segment of the population that would normally fly to Bali each year or would have taken a cruise on the Oriana or Fairstar....
Whispering "T" Jet
Getting back to the subject - shedding jobs. To be a good & successful Company Qantas must grow. Job shedding is for the accountants to improve the bottom line. There has been too much job shedding at Qantas and sadly until management start looking at ways to grow the business it will implode.
As we saw with Ansett, it doesn't matter how big you are/were, if you are badly managed you're dead.
As we saw with Ansett, it doesn't matter how big you are/were, if you are badly managed you're dead.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Downunder
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 holer..you are correct in reference to growth, if we look at the Group (2 brands) and then look at the best full service & LCC they are conintually growing (Emirate, Singapore in the full service and Southwest as LCC). There is still plenty of potential out there. But its probably fair to say QF is a bit fat staff wise, especially head office and management and it should come out of the next 6 months stronger by maintaining now profitability and cash flow.
Firecat...have you in turn seen figures which show JQI is losing money? Indeed there has been many change since its start up, but many of these have been in groups interest to best compete with other airlines or put capacity where QF can no longer afford to lose money. Better JQ (lower cost base) operates low yield routes than mainline. Leave to the routes where people are prepared to pay for full service. I.e recent changes of JQI in Japan are more due to QF wanting to pull out due losses and as JQI have no additional a/c they have to move them from other routes so as to serve NRT. Sort of makes sense doesnt it?
Firecat...have you in turn seen figures which show JQI is losing money? Indeed there has been many change since its start up, but many of these have been in groups interest to best compete with other airlines or put capacity where QF can no longer afford to lose money. Better JQ (lower cost base) operates low yield routes than mainline. Leave to the routes where people are prepared to pay for full service. I.e recent changes of JQI in Japan are more due to QF wanting to pull out due losses and as JQI have no additional a/c they have to move them from other routes so as to serve NRT. Sort of makes sense doesnt it?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about all of JQ Int flights, but the 3 times I have flown MEL-BKK it has only been about 60% full. TG on the same days has been 80% plus.
If you look at package deals you can get at Flight Centre for Thailand, they are only a few hundred more than JQ (JQ about $1000 return, TG to Phuket via BKK or BKK with 4 nights accom about $1300) and include 4 nights accom, and are full service. I've flown both using staff travel, but if someone I know is travelling full fare, I recommend they check all airlines. As most of the time, you can get something that is better value than JQ for about the same price.
So going on my limited experience with JQ Int, if a lot of flights are like this outside the holiday periods, I do wonder how they make a profit.
I'm not a big fan of JQ from a QF employee point of view. But I have to admit that domestically it was probably a good move. Internationally though I'm not convinced.
If you look at package deals you can get at Flight Centre for Thailand, they are only a few hundred more than JQ (JQ about $1000 return, TG to Phuket via BKK or BKK with 4 nights accom about $1300) and include 4 nights accom, and are full service. I've flown both using staff travel, but if someone I know is travelling full fare, I recommend they check all airlines. As most of the time, you can get something that is better value than JQ for about the same price.
So going on my limited experience with JQ Int, if a lot of flights are like this outside the holiday periods, I do wonder how they make a profit.
I'm not a big fan of JQ from a QF employee point of view. But I have to admit that domestically it was probably a good move. Internationally though I'm not convinced.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always believed that numbers matter. I know their limitations and I know that costs and profits can be shifted within a multi-enterprise group. But in the end numbers do tell a story and it worth investing some time in analysis vs emotion.
I really don’t have the time now, nor access to all the data that some of Jetstar’s and Qantas’ critics apparently have.
But as a useful research project, as distinct from just posting anger on Prune….here’s some thoughts.
Have a look for each of the last five years at:
1. The amount of total airline-business related revenue (nominal and real) generated per Qantas mainline employee
2. The total airline-business related costs (nominal and real) generated per Qantas employee
3. The number of seats in the air, flying hours, ASK and RPK per Qantas mainline employee
4. The average domestic passenger yield (nominal and real)
5. Then derive or estimate the same figures for JQ and VB
6. With the JQ figures you can probably have a rough guess at the Tiger figures
You’ll need to look at QF and VB’s (or VB various owners over the years) annual reports and also at research done by some of the better analysts. Have a look too at any published stuff on Easyjet and Ryanair too. This will take some time but now you will have numbers that will give the ability to look at what the Qantas mainline operation would be like if JQ was on the outside of the Group, alongside VB and Tiger, or what if there was no JQ and VB and Tiger were bigger by a Jetstar sized market amount. You should also now see the size and performance of the Qantas group with and without JQ.
The key is whether it was worth QF using its considerable strengths (those things some call subsidies) to ensure it has a piece of the action, covering its back with JQ….or whether it was ever possible to stay out of the low yield blood-bath and try and internally quarantine its own traffic. If, in the end, mainline could protect its traffic and yields, then the "do nothing" strategy might well have been the right one. If it couldn't.....draw your own conclusions.
When you’ve had a go at this, publish the figures on the web somewhere, maybe on Prune…so there’s some analysis behind the emotion. You will find it worthwhile. Might help me decide whether or not to sell the QF shares that are part of my retirement funding.
I really don’t have the time now, nor access to all the data that some of Jetstar’s and Qantas’ critics apparently have.
But as a useful research project, as distinct from just posting anger on Prune….here’s some thoughts.
Have a look for each of the last five years at:
1. The amount of total airline-business related revenue (nominal and real) generated per Qantas mainline employee
2. The total airline-business related costs (nominal and real) generated per Qantas employee
3. The number of seats in the air, flying hours, ASK and RPK per Qantas mainline employee
4. The average domestic passenger yield (nominal and real)
5. Then derive or estimate the same figures for JQ and VB
6. With the JQ figures you can probably have a rough guess at the Tiger figures
You’ll need to look at QF and VB’s (or VB various owners over the years) annual reports and also at research done by some of the better analysts. Have a look too at any published stuff on Easyjet and Ryanair too. This will take some time but now you will have numbers that will give the ability to look at what the Qantas mainline operation would be like if JQ was on the outside of the Group, alongside VB and Tiger, or what if there was no JQ and VB and Tiger were bigger by a Jetstar sized market amount. You should also now see the size and performance of the Qantas group with and without JQ.
The key is whether it was worth QF using its considerable strengths (those things some call subsidies) to ensure it has a piece of the action, covering its back with JQ….or whether it was ever possible to stay out of the low yield blood-bath and try and internally quarantine its own traffic. If, in the end, mainline could protect its traffic and yields, then the "do nothing" strategy might well have been the right one. If it couldn't.....draw your own conclusions.
When you’ve had a go at this, publish the figures on the web somewhere, maybe on Prune…so there’s some analysis behind the emotion. You will find it worthwhile. Might help me decide whether or not to sell the QF shares that are part of my retirement funding.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay then Firecat, I'll play your silly game, and packrat's too (and, in fact, all those of you who should obviously be inhabiting GD's office at QCC, judging by your knowledge of 'the facts').
http://www.jetstar.com/~/media/files...0070909_kl.pdf
Not that it proves that it has yet been a record-breaker, (and of course, there will be those who have in the past, and will in the very near future say that it's all made up; a littany of lies to deceive the ignorant.) but I'm guessing it meets the standards of book-keeping as laid down by various corporate and accounting acts of parliament.
And what confusion surrounds the brand??? None as far as the average passenger is concerned; the punter only has to go to the JQ website; he doesn't need to worry about which arm of the company flies him where - they all have the big star on the tail. It's the back-office guys and other employees who should know. You guys, by being interested enough to troll this forum, should know too. I guess you're all too busy changing the face of the Qantas Group with your erstwhile posts to worry about details.
It comes as quite a surprise to me that JQI is a failure! But what do I know? I only operate their equipment on their routes. Oh, yes...and then there's those pesky routes. How have they changed? We started with two destinations in Japan. We will still have two destinations in Japan. We're dropping KUL, and sending the narrow-body a/c to SGN. So...one dropped destination. Hmmmmm...that's never happened at Qantas/BA/JAL/ANA/Lufthansa (an uberairline if ever there was one)/et al, has it?
Wouldn't losing one aircraft for six months play a big part in the decision and the timing? Four A330s going in for C checks mean JQ are down to 5 A330s until early next year. Something in the schedule had to give - the original plan called for B787s to be here already to pick up the slack, but the production delay has put paid to that.
Mainline is hurting, with old aircraft - particularly the B743 - becoming costly, unreliable and getting a bad rep. So any chance of JQ getting a replacement or two A332's doesn't seem to be a reasonable expectation - they're needed at mainline.
If, as some here have suggested, JQ has spoiled or ruined a market that some here say should've stayed with mainline, I ask this; if it was so profitable, why did mainline do away with it? Probably the same reason JQ change some routes - profitability enhancement! And even though that might not mean making an actual profit, it may well mean reducing the losses (which is acceptable if continued Group exposure to the particular market is deemed important).
And lastly, if JQI is doing so woefully, why is it that lately flight crew are being asked if the jumpseats are available? Don't tell me! Yield management, no doubt, is also something we don't know about!
http://www.jetstar.com/~/media/files...0070909_kl.pdf
Not that it proves that it has yet been a record-breaker, (and of course, there will be those who have in the past, and will in the very near future say that it's all made up; a littany of lies to deceive the ignorant.) but I'm guessing it meets the standards of book-keeping as laid down by various corporate and accounting acts of parliament.
And what confusion surrounds the brand??? None as far as the average passenger is concerned; the punter only has to go to the JQ website; he doesn't need to worry about which arm of the company flies him where - they all have the big star on the tail. It's the back-office guys and other employees who should know. You guys, by being interested enough to troll this forum, should know too. I guess you're all too busy changing the face of the Qantas Group with your erstwhile posts to worry about details.
It comes as quite a surprise to me that JQI is a failure! But what do I know? I only operate their equipment on their routes. Oh, yes...and then there's those pesky routes. How have they changed? We started with two destinations in Japan. We will still have two destinations in Japan. We're dropping KUL, and sending the narrow-body a/c to SGN. So...one dropped destination. Hmmmmm...that's never happened at Qantas/BA/JAL/ANA/Lufthansa (an uberairline if ever there was one)/et al, has it?
Wouldn't losing one aircraft for six months play a big part in the decision and the timing? Four A330s going in for C checks mean JQ are down to 5 A330s until early next year. Something in the schedule had to give - the original plan called for B787s to be here already to pick up the slack, but the production delay has put paid to that.
Mainline is hurting, with old aircraft - particularly the B743 - becoming costly, unreliable and getting a bad rep. So any chance of JQ getting a replacement or two A332's doesn't seem to be a reasonable expectation - they're needed at mainline.
If, as some here have suggested, JQ has spoiled or ruined a market that some here say should've stayed with mainline, I ask this; if it was so profitable, why did mainline do away with it? Probably the same reason JQ change some routes - profitability enhancement! And even though that might not mean making an actual profit, it may well mean reducing the losses (which is acceptable if continued Group exposure to the particular market is deemed important).
And lastly, if JQI is doing so woefully, why is it that lately flight crew are being asked if the jumpseats are available? Don't tell me! Yield management, no doubt, is also something we don't know about!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Under The Southern Cross
Posts: 40
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, what's the difference between JQ and every other startup in Australia - Compass (every version), OzJet etc? QANTAS. If JQ didn't have the backing of Qantas, JQ would be where the others are now - consigned to the Australian aviation scrap heap. And everyone knows it. Why do QF staff feel so pissed off? Because they all know that JQ has been morphed on the reputation and at the expense of Qantas. Thankfully, some are beginning to realise that the baby is still on the breast. Strangle the mother and the baby will perish. 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JetStar and Heinz
We have....Jetstar Airways...based in Melbourne
Jetstar Asia.......based in Singapore
Jetstar Pacific....Based in Saigon
Jetstar Airways is owned by Qantas and flies domestically.The other two are owned by Qantas in conjunction with Tomasek and Vietnam Air.Both are minority holdings.
The domestic brand was necessary to protect the line in the sand against virgin and whoever else might like to enter Australian skies.
JetStar Asia has a limited network and has recently distanced itself from Qantas.
Likewise JetStar Pacific has a limited network and is seen as an attempt to capitalize on the growing Vietnamese economy.
Jetstar Airways is tapping into a market of passengers who previously had never flown or could only afford to fly rarely.It has the mantle of LCC to itself as Virgin Airlines has changed its model and moved toward higher yield passengers.
There is little co ordination between the three varieties of Jetstar.The two international varieties seem to have little direction although the Temasek Singapore based brand seems to be gaining some traction.
The Australian based Jetstar has been used by Qantas mainline to drive down its labour costs.It has been successful in this endeavour.
Profitability of the two overseas brands have yet to contribute much to the Qantas Group.
Jetstar Airways uses a great deal of Qantas Group Resources at either reduced cost or no cost.If it stood alone it would be profitable...just.The LCC model Jetstar uses was initially based around $US85/barrel.Without the benefit of hedged fuel from its parent it would be struggling.
How much profit it makes is difficult to determine...costs and revenue are disguised or hidden amongst the financial data of its parent.
Most if not all of the anger displayed in forums such as PPrune relates to Jetstar forcing mainline employees to reduce their terms and conditions...the so called race to the bottom.
Many hope that Jetstar in all its forms will fail.The domestic Jetstar will likely stay the distance.The other two will have their futures determined by their majority shareholders and the competition of other LCCs in Asia.Some of that competition is already very successful.
Only time will tell...the rest is mainly angry speculation
Jetstar Asia.......based in Singapore
Jetstar Pacific....Based in Saigon
Jetstar Airways is owned by Qantas and flies domestically.The other two are owned by Qantas in conjunction with Tomasek and Vietnam Air.Both are minority holdings.
The domestic brand was necessary to protect the line in the sand against virgin and whoever else might like to enter Australian skies.
JetStar Asia has a limited network and has recently distanced itself from Qantas.
Likewise JetStar Pacific has a limited network and is seen as an attempt to capitalize on the growing Vietnamese economy.
Jetstar Airways is tapping into a market of passengers who previously had never flown or could only afford to fly rarely.It has the mantle of LCC to itself as Virgin Airlines has changed its model and moved toward higher yield passengers.
There is little co ordination between the three varieties of Jetstar.The two international varieties seem to have little direction although the Temasek Singapore based brand seems to be gaining some traction.
The Australian based Jetstar has been used by Qantas mainline to drive down its labour costs.It has been successful in this endeavour.
Profitability of the two overseas brands have yet to contribute much to the Qantas Group.
Jetstar Airways uses a great deal of Qantas Group Resources at either reduced cost or no cost.If it stood alone it would be profitable...just.The LCC model Jetstar uses was initially based around $US85/barrel.Without the benefit of hedged fuel from its parent it would be struggling.
How much profit it makes is difficult to determine...costs and revenue are disguised or hidden amongst the financial data of its parent.
Most if not all of the anger displayed in forums such as PPrune relates to Jetstar forcing mainline employees to reduce their terms and conditions...the so called race to the bottom.
Many hope that Jetstar in all its forms will fail.The domestic Jetstar will likely stay the distance.The other two will have their futures determined by their majority shareholders and the competition of other LCCs in Asia.Some of that competition is already very successful.
Only time will tell...the rest is mainly angry speculation
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close to home
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rad Alt Alive
Which one of the three illegitimate sisters do you work for and on which routes are the jumpseats being requested and by whom?
It may have also escaped your notice but with the recent chaos surrounding the Qantas timetable many passengers were transferred to other airlines.The seat load factor on your airline would no doubt have benefited enormously from these transfers.
Dont worry it wont last.
You will soon have your Star class seat back when traveling home to see your mum.
It may have also escaped your notice but with the recent chaos surrounding the Qantas timetable many passengers were transferred to other airlines.The seat load factor on your airline would no doubt have benefited enormously from these transfers.
Dont worry it wont last.
You will soon have your Star class seat back when traveling home to see your mum.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: tassie
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAA,
Well said, there alot of people here that dispise JQ, especially some of the parents flight crew (understandable i suppose as we have taken alot of their commands)
Whether they like it or not JQ will be here for a long time to come and I think what they fail to see it we all work for the same company...
Who cares is QF provides support, and saying that JQ would fail without it is utter crap...meaning that, the two live side by side and QF are supporting their own airline...seems to make sense to me..
I don't like the way that management of both airlines are dividing the group with rumors and inuendo, using JQ to lower the bar around the Group in regard to T&C's, lets hope one day we call all work together and have well paid jobs for life!!
Well said, there alot of people here that dispise JQ, especially some of the parents flight crew (understandable i suppose as we have taken alot of their commands)
Whether they like it or not JQ will be here for a long time to come and I think what they fail to see it we all work for the same company...
Who cares is QF provides support, and saying that JQ would fail without it is utter crap...meaning that, the two live side by side and QF are supporting their own airline...seems to make sense to me..
I don't like the way that management of both airlines are dividing the group with rumors and inuendo, using JQ to lower the bar around the Group in regard to T&C's, lets hope one day we call all work together and have well paid jobs for life!!
Last edited by Muff Hunter; 24th Jul 2008 at 05:00.
I do however don't like the way that management of both airlines are dividing the group with rumors and inuendo, using JQ to lower the bar around the Group in regard to T&C's, lets hope one day we call all work together and have well paid jobs for life!!
I wouldn't say management divide the group with rumours. In the end it's really up to YOU whether you choose to work there or and accept lower pay and conditions. I considered applying once - until I found out that it's $30 for them to process your intial application!!
To me that was just the tip of the iceberg and my application never eventuated. If people want to work there, good on them! That's the beauty of having a choice in this country. If enough people didn't apply on those grounds, it could be a very different story.Two separate companies, two separate EBA's. Why don't people compare Virgin to Jetstar in the same way? In the end, it'd be doing the same thing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dubai
Age: 44
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Muff,
Couple of points.
Firstly, from what I have read on here, what p1sses QF people off is mainline providing things to JQ at little or no cost, thereby improving JQ result and reducing mainline's result and then having JQ held up as being the future of aviation by certain people called Geoff and Alan in an effort to justify the whole exercise. Basically 'JQ did so well this year that we think we need to continue our efforts to drive down worker's T's and C's as it obviously pays off - as evidenced by JQ wonderful result - just don't mention the millions in support given to JQ by mainline.' Kinda like Basil's 'Don't mention the war - I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.'
As to whether JQ would fail without that support - don't know - but it is relevant. If you are going to push for this LCC model and use it to reform your mainline operation, then you should have the courage of your convictions (if JQ is such a wonderful thing) to have it stand on its own two feet in the organisation. Anything else is management tampering to suit their own, possibly nefarious, means. I imagine that it is also probably dodgy from an accounting and possibly tax point of view as well but being a humble ATC, don't know.
Finally, Geoff and Alan are fairly blunt in their opinions that the mainline cost base needs to be reduced to the JQ one as much as possible as the JQ cost base is the preferred one. Never mind that the mainline revenue is (probably) higher as a percentage of the cost base.....
Anyway, because of this, there is no chance of them allowing you to all work together - the divide and conquer mentality is alive and well! And as for having well paid jobs for life, unless mainline pilots are willing to take a pay cut to JQ wages, don't expect to be on the same money as them any time soon.
Couple of points.
Firstly, from what I have read on here, what p1sses QF people off is mainline providing things to JQ at little or no cost, thereby improving JQ result and reducing mainline's result and then having JQ held up as being the future of aviation by certain people called Geoff and Alan in an effort to justify the whole exercise. Basically 'JQ did so well this year that we think we need to continue our efforts to drive down worker's T's and C's as it obviously pays off - as evidenced by JQ wonderful result - just don't mention the millions in support given to JQ by mainline.' Kinda like Basil's 'Don't mention the war - I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.'
As to whether JQ would fail without that support - don't know - but it is relevant. If you are going to push for this LCC model and use it to reform your mainline operation, then you should have the courage of your convictions (if JQ is such a wonderful thing) to have it stand on its own two feet in the organisation. Anything else is management tampering to suit their own, possibly nefarious, means. I imagine that it is also probably dodgy from an accounting and possibly tax point of view as well but being a humble ATC, don't know.
Finally, Geoff and Alan are fairly blunt in their opinions that the mainline cost base needs to be reduced to the JQ one as much as possible as the JQ cost base is the preferred one. Never mind that the mainline revenue is (probably) higher as a percentage of the cost base.....
Anyway, because of this, there is no chance of them allowing you to all work together - the divide and conquer mentality is alive and well! And as for having well paid jobs for life, unless mainline pilots are willing to take a pay cut to JQ wages, don't expect to be on the same money as them any time soon.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Reality
The concept of LCC is no longer relevant as the price of fuel has eroded the cost advantage.
The airfare differential has narrowed and the downside of flying with a LCC has become a significant consideration when travelling.
JetStar domestic has a place in Australian Aviation.The International Arm may soon become irrelevant on the sole basis of price.The model will need to change to survive.Virgin Airlines have changed their model to reflect the realities of the market.
Jobs may go as the economic downturn intrudes on individual s travel plans.
If the price of fuel continues its downward trend International LCCs may still have place in aviation.
Interesting times ahead.
The airfare differential has narrowed and the downside of flying with a LCC has become a significant consideration when travelling.
JetStar domestic has a place in Australian Aviation.The International Arm may soon become irrelevant on the sole basis of price.The model will need to change to survive.Virgin Airlines have changed their model to reflect the realities of the market.
Jobs may go as the economic downturn intrudes on individual s travel plans.
If the price of fuel continues its downward trend International LCCs may still have place in aviation.
Interesting times ahead.
I think people are forgetting that a low cost carrier will now become a "reasonable" cost carrier. The model still works. But with spiraling fuel prices does a LARGE full service airline work or is there going to be a capacity decrease of the full service component, and an increase in the economy component albeit at a lower cost base, hence the use of JQ.
There are allot of mythes floating around about JQ using QF staff/facilities to stay profitable. I'm sorry ladies and gents it just ain't true. The main component JQ uses is the security section, a little bit of finance but thats it.
Ground handling and the like have been tendered out and surprising QF was the lowest bidder. Personally if we could bypass QF ground staff on the International stuff it would save a lot of headaches. Just to much low moral and new contract people dragging everything down. Its a darn shame.
There are allot of mythes floating around about JQ using QF staff/facilities to stay profitable. I'm sorry ladies and gents it just ain't true. The main component JQ uses is the security section, a little bit of finance but thats it.
Ground handling and the like have been tendered out and surprising QF was the lowest bidder. Personally if we could bypass QF ground staff on the International stuff it would save a lot of headaches. Just to much low moral and new contract people dragging everything down. Its a darn shame.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Under The Southern Cross
Posts: 40
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bula, bula, bula and all the others that just don't get it. Do you really think that if the irishman had set out on his own ie. JetStar, not a Qantas group airline, that JQ would even be still in living memory?
I mean really. When are you guys going to get it? Jetstar does not and would not exist without the mother company. If I were you, I would be praying that the mother survives. And on that note, it seems the new doctor is a specilaist and is taking a far greater interest in the mothers well being than the previous charge sister.
I mean really. When are you guys going to get it? Jetstar does not and would not exist without the mother company. If I were you, I would be praying that the mother survives. And on that note, it seems the new doctor is a specilaist and is taking a far greater interest in the mothers well being than the previous charge sister.
Considering Jetstar was formed by the Qantas Group......... well all I can say is DDIIIIRRRR!!!!!! 
... we have some rocket scientists amongst us I think. No one has ever said JQ would exist without mainline. For my money I dare say your will be seeing alot more cat food around the sky if that were the case.
My point is simple. The "mothership" will always exist, but will become more so the premium carrier. To do this capacity must be adjusted for the business market. Whether thats up or down only time will tell. Jetstar will take on the economy fares and leisure runs more so now and into the future.
For any company to maintain their yield in a more demanding market, cost bases will have to be lower to ensure competitive fares otherwise people will just not fly. It will become to "elitist" once again. As we all know this is not going to happen with the likes of Tiger and Virgin in the market place because its simply called competition. We have seen Aviation from the days of Ansett, TAA, Australian and Compass. Its fragility has been well observed. To be naive to think that the QF cost base will be sustainable in a high fuel cost world does show a lack of knowledge regarding yield management with its current capacity hence the withdrawing of the 747-300 earlier, older 737 and 767's. Mark my words, the mainline will not shink, its yields will be high, but its growth in the near future will be well below last month growth of 4.6% until capacity return to a more even playing field.
To place it into prospective as the belt buckles tighten around our fair land its amazing to see the cost restructuring already coming into play. Both QLink and mainline pax numbers plummeted last month, while JQ had a 15% growth in pax number as well as load factors. By the looks of it, the group is definitely tightening its belt with capacity going to JQ and it will be the vehicle of growth for the next year or so. Mark my words.
... we have some rocket scientists amongst us I think. No one has ever said JQ would exist without mainline. For my money I dare say your will be seeing alot more cat food around the sky if that were the case.My point is simple. The "mothership" will always exist, but will become more so the premium carrier. To do this capacity must be adjusted for the business market. Whether thats up or down only time will tell. Jetstar will take on the economy fares and leisure runs more so now and into the future.
For any company to maintain their yield in a more demanding market, cost bases will have to be lower to ensure competitive fares otherwise people will just not fly. It will become to "elitist" once again. As we all know this is not going to happen with the likes of Tiger and Virgin in the market place because its simply called competition. We have seen Aviation from the days of Ansett, TAA, Australian and Compass. Its fragility has been well observed. To be naive to think that the QF cost base will be sustainable in a high fuel cost world does show a lack of knowledge regarding yield management with its current capacity hence the withdrawing of the 747-300 earlier, older 737 and 767's. Mark my words, the mainline will not shink, its yields will be high, but its growth in the near future will be well below last month growth of 4.6% until capacity return to a more even playing field.
To place it into prospective as the belt buckles tighten around our fair land its amazing to see the cost restructuring already coming into play. Both QLink and mainline pax numbers plummeted last month, while JQ had a 15% growth in pax number as well as load factors. By the looks of it, the group is definitely tightening its belt with capacity going to JQ and it will be the vehicle of growth for the next year or so. Mark my words.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bula,
I think the passenger numbers over the last month have been affected by the engineering industrial action.
Dixon recognised the fact that whilst the action was taking place, mainline was loosing pax to Virgin Blue (and I assume J* as well)
So I dont think that the recent figures are a good example of mainline in general.
MC
I think the passenger numbers over the last month have been affected by the engineering industrial action.
Dixon recognised the fact that whilst the action was taking place, mainline was loosing pax to Virgin Blue (and I assume J* as well)
So I dont think that the recent figures are a good example of mainline in general.
MC