Qantas to Paris
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Age: 59
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, back to the thread.
management, by this i mean many different talking heads, have repeatedly said that as we couldn't get daily slots to CDG the numbers didn't stack up and that is the reason we pulled out. no-one claimed crew costs were ever a factor in this discussion. until we get daily rights then CDG will not happen.
management, by this i mean many different talking heads, have repeatedly said that as we couldn't get daily slots to CDG the numbers didn't stack up and that is the reason we pulled out. no-one claimed crew costs were ever a factor in this discussion. until we get daily rights then CDG will not happen.
Last edited by indamiddle; 2nd Feb 2010 at 23:06. Reason: clarity?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: QLD
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
redtbar. I would suggest our skill set is just a little more complex than what is required to be cabin crew. Can you make a peanut butter sandwich? You're hired! Hence the difference in pay rates.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
funbags,you're a funny fellow.If you think that making a peanut butter sandwich is the only skill requirement for cabin crew then I would stick to flying if I were you.
That is if you really are a pilot because you only seem to post about anti cabin crew matters.
That is if you really are a pilot because you only seem to post about anti cabin crew matters.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back on track I hope that we get back into Paris but I doubt it will happen.If it does it will be Jetstar.
The airline has got it's wedge with the jetstar.Look at some of the posts with V Australia and what they are paying crew.
Within a few years QF will be doing London,Los Angeles,maybe New York still,Hong Kong and maybe Frankfurt but I wouldn't be holding my breath.Why would they be wanting Paris?
They might want the slots for Jetstar but not for us.
Don't kid yourself indamiddle,this is all about money.They got us with QCCA but they still have QF tech crew on their pay scales.So Jetstar is looking the goods for any new port including Paris.Once they get their foot in the door with Paris Jetstar will be over Europe like a rash.I think that if you look at the Jetstar route maps in a few years it will look like QF's network in the 60's and early 70's.
The airline has got it's wedge with the jetstar.Look at some of the posts with V Australia and what they are paying crew.
Within a few years QF will be doing London,Los Angeles,maybe New York still,Hong Kong and maybe Frankfurt but I wouldn't be holding my breath.Why would they be wanting Paris?
They might want the slots for Jetstar but not for us.
no-one claimed crew costs were ever a factor in this discussion
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
With respect to availability of slots, this press release states that the 3x / week is a limit imposed by the bilateral air services agreement currently in force between Australia and France.
Market access is being discussed under the umbrella of the Australia / EU open skies discussions currently taking place. It does seem rather silly that an agreement between the two countries at the end of the line precludes carriers from at least one of those countries from properly competing with carriers based at points between.
As an interim, I'd be interested in asking Les Frogs if there's any chance of a quick grant of Fifth-Freedom rights between Heathrow or Frankfurt and CDG?
So you'd operate your directs 3x / week and Fifth Freedom in the other four days et voila! Daily services and use of slots and possibly increased utilisation of the QF005/006 airframe.
Market access is being discussed under the umbrella of the Australia / EU open skies discussions currently taking place. It does seem rather silly that an agreement between the two countries at the end of the line precludes carriers from at least one of those countries from properly competing with carriers based at points between.
As an interim, I'd be interested in asking Les Frogs if there's any chance of a quick grant of Fifth-Freedom rights between Heathrow or Frankfurt and CDG?
So you'd operate your directs 3x / week and Fifth Freedom in the other four days et voila! Daily services and use of slots and possibly increased utilisation of the QF005/006 airframe.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 3rd Feb 2010 at 04:22.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sombrero CA.
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fra/cdg/fra
Qantas did this many moons ago.
Transit time in CDG was about 6 hours from memory.
Just enough time to go into town have lunch,come back,have a kip and then back to work
Transit time in CDG was about 6 hours from memory.
Just enough time to go into town have lunch,come back,have a kip and then back to work
BHH
Join Date: May 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The great cost "Spin"
I have to agree with 438 here.
Over 70% of the cost base of an airline is down to fuel and aircraft costs(maintenance e.t.c).
The fact that Qantas are running 20 year old 747's that use higher amounts of fuel and are costly to maintain(4 engines and old aircraft not under warranty) is the deal breaker.
The flight crew cost (3-4 pilots) is a very small percentage of the cost base.
If we were to use Jetstar pilots on Qantas mainline routes the Qantas operation would not suddenly become profitable.
Still we get suckered in though.
If Qantas mainline had a modern fleet of appropriate aircraft,i.e the 777 ,we probably could rationalize more routes than we do currently. We would also stand a greater chance of remaining profitable on current Qantas routes.
I don't see any Jetstar aircraft that are 20 years old with a minimum of 20 defects. Reason: They could not make it economically viable without new aircraft leased cheaply off the back of the Qantas Group.
Over 70% of the cost base of an airline is down to fuel and aircraft costs(maintenance e.t.c).
The fact that Qantas are running 20 year old 747's that use higher amounts of fuel and are costly to maintain(4 engines and old aircraft not under warranty) is the deal breaker.
The flight crew cost (3-4 pilots) is a very small percentage of the cost base.
If we were to use Jetstar pilots on Qantas mainline routes the Qantas operation would not suddenly become profitable.
Still we get suckered in though.
If Qantas mainline had a modern fleet of appropriate aircraft,i.e the 777 ,we probably could rationalize more routes than we do currently. We would also stand a greater chance of remaining profitable on current Qantas routes.
I don't see any Jetstar aircraft that are 20 years old with a minimum of 20 defects. Reason: They could not make it economically viable without new aircraft leased cheaply off the back of the Qantas Group.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the 2 biggest costs in running an airline these days are fuel and wages.
There's no doubt about it that a newer more fuel efficient aircraft would help the bottom line but if you looked at the cost of wages for QF mainline pilots compared to the costs of wages for the Jetstar pilot group there would be a huge difference.
It's not only the money the airline pays for wages it's also the super,holidays,LSL etc..and the difference would be significant.It's not only that but the efficiency of the two awards.So it's not just looking at a 2,3 or 4 person crew it's the costs of both groups you would have to look at.
If this was not an issue why did the company go to the trouble they have setting up the Jetstar model with different pilot groups?
There's no doubt about it that a newer more fuel efficient aircraft would help the bottom line but if you looked at the cost of wages for QF mainline pilots compared to the costs of wages for the Jetstar pilot group there would be a huge difference.
It's not only the money the airline pays for wages it's also the super,holidays,LSL etc..and the difference would be significant.It's not only that but the efficiency of the two awards.So it's not just looking at a 2,3 or 4 person crew it's the costs of both groups you would have to look at.
If this was not an issue why did the company go to the trouble they have setting up the Jetstar model with different pilot groups?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wages vs Crew Costs
Red T Bar,
That is simply incorrect.
Refer to the cost pie chart in the latest data book from Qantas available on Australian Securities Exchange - Stock Market Information, Stock Quotes - ASX and use QAN for the ASX code.
Wages as you refer are not isolated Crew costs(tech and cabin) which I am referring to.
Wages include staff across the whole group from executive level down to the lowest paid staff member.
To suggest that Flight crew costs are the second largest is rubbish.
On the A380 fleet with the increased cabin crew numbers(20-22 cabin crew) crew costs may in fact be slightly bigger as a percentage and hence why QCCA crew operate in these larger numbers.I am not suggesting that I'm pleased that staff
are paid lower than their Qantas equivalents.
The point is simple and sadly you have missed it.
If Qantas mainline were to operate new aircraft that were more suited to the routes flown and were more fuel efficient to operate and more efficient to maintain and service then this would make a greater difference than what cabin or tech crew are paid.
This is why Jetstar are only flying new aircraft that are bought and leased cheaply off the back of the Qantas group.
That is simply incorrect.
Refer to the cost pie chart in the latest data book from Qantas available on Australian Securities Exchange - Stock Market Information, Stock Quotes - ASX and use QAN for the ASX code.
Wages as you refer are not isolated Crew costs(tech and cabin) which I am referring to.
Wages include staff across the whole group from executive level down to the lowest paid staff member.
To suggest that Flight crew costs are the second largest is rubbish.
On the A380 fleet with the increased cabin crew numbers(20-22 cabin crew) crew costs may in fact be slightly bigger as a percentage and hence why QCCA crew operate in these larger numbers.I am not suggesting that I'm pleased that staff
are paid lower than their Qantas equivalents.
The point is simple and sadly you have missed it.
If Qantas mainline were to operate new aircraft that were more suited to the routes flown and were more fuel efficient to operate and more efficient to maintain and service then this would make a greater difference than what cabin or tech crew are paid.
This is why Jetstar are only flying new aircraft that are bought and leased cheaply off the back of the Qantas group.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
breakfastburrito,I don't hate anyone or any group and I'm certainly not jealous of any group ,pilot or otherwise.
I also am not a troll as you suggest.Instead I am pointing out the obvious and that is the difference in one of the comparative crew costs between a legacy airline and a LCC.
Let's consider a hypothetical situation
An organisation owns both a legacy airline and a LCC
.
They both employ the same number of pilots and for this example let's say 500.
Let's use an average difference in gross pay between the two pilot groups of $100,000 per pilot then the total difference is $50,000,000.If you are suggesting that the difference is negligable then you are not being honest.
Add to that super,LSL,annual holidays not too mention paying for your own endorsement and you get the picture.It is a significant amount.They have already got their pound of flesh with Cabin Crew on a different award and achieved a huge cost saving as well as ground staff.The only thing I am saying is that the company would love to do the same with pilots.
I also am not a troll as you suggest.Instead I am pointing out the obvious and that is the difference in one of the comparative crew costs between a legacy airline and a LCC.
Let's consider a hypothetical situation
An organisation owns both a legacy airline and a LCC
.They both employ the same number of pilots and for this example let's say 500.
Let's use an average difference in gross pay between the two pilot groups of $100,000 per pilot then the total difference is $50,000,000.If you are suggesting that the difference is negligable then you are not being honest.
Add to that super,LSL,annual holidays not too mention paying for your own endorsement and you get the picture.It is a significant amount.They have already got their pound of flesh with Cabin Crew on a different award and achieved a huge cost saving as well as ground staff.The only thing I am saying is that the company would love to do the same with pilots.
Redtbar, the maths are simple as you explain, however from those savings (and i doubt they are that big) you have to pay for a seperate management including CEO, CFO, CP etc, training section etc and all the buildings to house these duplicated positions. Although some extra staff would be required if all worked for one company i doubt the savings from pilot wages would pay for the entire process of duplication.
Beat me to it Dragon.
Only problem with our argument though, is that the offspring looks incredibly efficient when many of the costs of its upbringing are paid by the parent.
Only problem with our argument though, is that the offspring looks incredibly efficient when many of the costs of its upbringing are paid by the parent.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dragon man,yes the maths are simple because they're true.If they're not show me and I'll happily accept the correction.The infrastructure you mention is already there.They have the management etc that you talked about.
Check in and ground staff are already cheaper than QF as well as cabin crew and pilots.Although long haul QF have now got qcca cabin crew which are supposed to be as cheap as Jetstar
The difference between the 2 is the cost of the pilots flying to places like Paris.
With the cost difference I can't see us going anywhere new unless it has a viable business class market.Even then I think they would have Jetstar feeder services in Europe connecting with the QF flights out of London and Frankfurt.I hope I'm wrong but the days of us flying to Paris,Athens,Rome,Belgrade and others are a distant memory.
Check in and ground staff are already cheaper than QF as well as cabin crew and pilots.Although long haul QF have now got qcca cabin crew which are supposed to be as cheap as Jetstar
The difference between the 2 is the cost of the pilots flying to places like Paris.
With the cost difference I can't see us going anywhere new unless it has a viable business class market.Even then I think they would have Jetstar feeder services in Europe connecting with the QF flights out of London and Frankfurt.I hope I'm wrong but the days of us flying to Paris,Athens,Rome,Belgrade and others are a distant memory.
The reason why QF mainline is unlikely to go back to Paris (apart from the politics of slots at CDG) is that modern airline financial models favour "out and back" operations where they get two sectors out of the operating crews with only one accommodation and allowance cost. When QF mainline previously operated to Paris (& Rome etc), the operation involved each crew flying four sectors with three lots of accommodation and allowances - therefore crew costs are significantly higher. When Qantas was refused rights for a daily service, it was cheaper to code share with Air France who were flying a daily "out & back" service CDG-SIN-CDG.
Future Jetstar operations to Athens and Rome look like being flown by crews from Jetstar Australia (International) and Jetstar Asia - Jetstar Oz will do an "out & back" operation from Australian ports to SIN and Jetstar Asia will do an "out & back" operation SIN-FCO-SIN and SIN-ATH-SIN. This will result in lower crewing costs as well as giving crews more nights at home thus allowing higher utilisation. This concept is not new, eg Australian Airlines (AO) was set up to operate from Cairns to the Orient under this style of planning.
All the desire by Oz based crews to operate these trips will not cause the financial geniuses who manage airlines to deviate from this planning model. Airlines like SQ & EK etc have the advantage of being based in the middle of the major routes, thus their flying patterns are almost entirely "out & back".
Future Jetstar operations to Athens and Rome look like being flown by crews from Jetstar Australia (International) and Jetstar Asia - Jetstar Oz will do an "out & back" operation from Australian ports to SIN and Jetstar Asia will do an "out & back" operation SIN-FCO-SIN and SIN-ATH-SIN. This will result in lower crewing costs as well as giving crews more nights at home thus allowing higher utilisation. This concept is not new, eg Australian Airlines (AO) was set up to operate from Cairns to the Orient under this style of planning.
All the desire by Oz based crews to operate these trips will not cause the financial geniuses who manage airlines to deviate from this planning model. Airlines like SQ & EK etc have the advantage of being based in the middle of the major routes, thus their flying patterns are almost entirely "out & back".
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bundeena(AUSTRALIA)
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bingolay!!
Going Boeing has nailed it.
Look at the number of out and back trips mainline does.
Apart from LHR and FRA and a few regional patterns everything else is O and B
High Crew utilization,reduced allowances and accommodation.
The quality of hotel has also been declining and therefore cheaper.
CDG not on the horizon for mainline.Nice dream though
Look at the number of out and back trips mainline does.
Apart from LHR and FRA and a few regional patterns everything else is O and B
High Crew utilization,reduced allowances and accommodation.
The quality of hotel has also been declining and therefore cheaper.
CDG not on the horizon for mainline.Nice dream though
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going Boeing,using your economic aviation model we will be losing London and Frankfurt as well.
At least you've admitted that cost is the biggest factor apart from the politics.
The real problem is the business market.Like Athens,Rome,Belgrade and the other destinations we have given way the common factor is a business market.If the main market is tourism and that means economy why operate a legacy airline when you can operate your LCC with overall lower cost including lower crew costs?
Even if there is a reasonable business market potential the crew costs with QF are still higher than Jetstar.In the book 'The Men who killed Qantas' I think it was Hudson Fysh who mentioned that upper management and the board were jealous of the pay that QF's pilots got.
That is one of the reasons why Jetstar was created especially after AO did not quite get the savings required.
If you look at the difference between AO and Jetstar,what were the biggest differences on costing?
AO used QF tech crew and older less fuel efficient aircraft with tired interiors.
Jetstar uses cheaper pilots with newer fuel efficient aircraft with new interiors.
I hope Going Boeing is wrong because if they cannot get crew costs down compared to jetstar then QF is doomed because they will set up QF lite in Singapore or BKK and QF Australia will end up only flying out of and back into Australia.
There goes London,frankfurt,New York and with it Qantas history.
At least you've admitted that cost is the biggest factor apart from the politics.
The real problem is the business market.Like Athens,Rome,Belgrade and the other destinations we have given way the common factor is a business market.If the main market is tourism and that means economy why operate a legacy airline when you can operate your LCC with overall lower cost including lower crew costs?
Even if there is a reasonable business market potential the crew costs with QF are still higher than Jetstar.In the book 'The Men who killed Qantas' I think it was Hudson Fysh who mentioned that upper management and the board were jealous of the pay that QF's pilots got.
That is one of the reasons why Jetstar was created especially after AO did not quite get the savings required.
If you look at the difference between AO and Jetstar,what were the biggest differences on costing?
AO used QF tech crew and older less fuel efficient aircraft with tired interiors.
Jetstar uses cheaper pilots with newer fuel efficient aircraft with new interiors.
I hope Going Boeing is wrong because if they cannot get crew costs down compared to jetstar then QF is doomed because they will set up QF lite in Singapore or BKK and QF Australia will end up only flying out of and back into Australia.
There goes London,frankfurt,New York and with it Qantas history.