Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Qantas Sells 767s

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 6th Dec 2010, 05:38
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"There's no money in freight" said a former Ansett Chief Pilot....
b.
Well that was the case with Ansett especially after they started losing mail contracts in the late 90's an AaE was born. But anybody who was around freight during that era would also know how Ansett air freight was being run and yes they were losing money hand over fist. There was bad practise amongst management and workforce.
This is not a dig at Ansett by the way as I still miss the airline to this very day. I am just stating a fact from a business perspective and first hand knowledge of the industry.

The introduction of this aircraft under EFA will enable Qantas to keep people costs down by outsourcing, as well as shutting QF mainline drivers out of the loop... What a shock ????
gobbledock is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 05:36
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, N.S.W. Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would seem the EFA 767 is not ex-Qantas, it is ex-ANA Cargo.
Bankstown is online now  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 11:57
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Too small, too late...

Sonny Hammond is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 12:34
  #44 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 3,881
Received 154 Likes on 48 Posts
And boy oh boy does she climb when she is empty!!!!
SOPS is online now  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 15:45
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"In a previous life...", exactly how long ago was this "previous life". I suspect back when labor costs were not as defining as they now are.

Gob

"The majority of Australia's domestic cargo moves via QF mainline groups during the day and via AaE at night."

You are correct. BUT how much cargo moves within Australia on a legacy airline dedicated cargo aircraft. I can tell you now - its a VERY small number.

How many dedicated cargo aircraft are operated by BA or LH or AA or UA or QF or CX or SQ . . . . .

VERY FEW legacy carriers can make money from operating cargo aircraft on mainline overheads.
The Professor is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2010, 23:29
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
VERY FEW legacy carriers can make money from operating cargo aircraft on mainline overheads.
Hahahaha. You prove yourself to be an idiot over and over again.
Lufthansa CARGO
German CARGO
Sing CARGO
UPS CARGO

etc. etc. etc.
ferris is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 00:20
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I should be more specific. It appears you need spoon feeding.

How many dedicated cargo aircraft are operated by BA or LH or AA or UA or QF or CX or SQ mainline . . . . .

And the examples you used highlight my point EXACTLY.

Lufthansa DOES NOT operate cargo only aircraft as a mainline operation.

German Cargo DID NOT.

Sing Cargo is a separate company employing its own staff.

UPS is a small parcel delivery system that DOES NOT carry cargo.

Again, VERY FEW legacy airlines operate cargo only aircraft with the same overheads as the passenger operation.

But thank you for supplying me with 4 good examples that support my argument.

Try again twit.
The Professor is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 00:25
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NW was the only airline in the US to have dedicated freighters but they dont exist anymore so now no US based airlines fly cargo - pax airlines that is.

of course there is kalitta/evergreen etc but they are far from major carrier wage levels and conditions.
AnQrKa is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 00:50
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australasia
Posts: 431
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Yep

No money in freight. Thats why KAL run 30 or so, dedicated 747.400 freighters.

They will learn one day.

ANA and JAL Cargo should heed the warning too.

Maui
maui is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 01:18
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JAL cargo was a separate business but recently shut down. Cant have been too much money in cargo.

Nippon cargo is a separate business with own crew etc.
AnQrKa is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 03:27
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dedicated Freighters

Cathay Pacific operates a fleet of 24 B747 Freighters, comprising 6 B747-400F's, 12 B747-400BCF's and 6 B747-400ERF's. Cathay moves about 100,000 tonnes of freight per month, half of which is carried on their 101 aircraft operating passenger flights. They have committed to 10 B747-8 Freighters. No money in freight? Cathay certainly believes there is.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 03:39
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CX is another fine example of where the cargo fleet is operated separately to the passenger fleet. The pax overheads, namely labor costs, do not spill over to the cargo fleet. Cathay Pacific Airways does not operate a single cargo aircraft.

Again, find me a legacy carrier that operates cargo only aircraft at pax fleet costs and crewing?

It makes little business sense.
The Professor is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 04:26
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cathay Pacific Cargo

CX has not always had a seperate "Freight only" fleet operated as a seperate entity. Initially, and for a number of years, CX operated B747-200F aircraft (at least three that I flew on) crewed by mainline crews. Our roster simply had us on either a pax flight or a freighter. Even today, about half the monthly freight carried (about 100,000 tonnes) is moved on pax flights. About 30% of Cathay's revenue is generated by freight.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 04:36
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well Professor, you are truly confusing me! Here I sit in a crew hotel with a CX contract on a full CX expat pay scale and it sure as hell looked like a CX freighter that I just landed. Did I hear you calling someone a twit?
chards is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 05:35
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: australasia
Posts: 431
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
Prof.

I would swear I mentioned KAL!

Same crews same rosters same everything. KAL is reputed to be the third largest freight carrier behind Fedex and UPS. Largest of the pax carriers.

Strictly speaking, a Legacy Carrier is of USA origin and preceeding deregulation, so technically you may very well be correct. However I don't believe you were being quite that tight in your definition.

M
maui is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 07:24
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But thank you for supplying me with 4 good examples that support my argument.

Try again twit.
Keep digging that hole, genius. Your argument (for want of a better word), as I understand it, is that cargo operators can't survive if they pay crews at the rate that legacy carriers do (and therefor have "high costs"). That is your contention, right? As I, and others have pointed out, that is total BS. You have just had a pilot (CX) tell you in no uncertain termsthat he earns the same as the dreaded legacy operation pax-flying pilots you despise, whilst flying freight.

Keep digging, though, champ. You look especially stupid when you describe UPS as carrying 'small parcels', but not freight. WTF? The unfortunate crew of the UPS6 that crashed in Dubai recently might ask you if a pallet load of lithium batteries (that is believed to have caused the smoke) is considered 'not freight'.
ferris is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 07:34
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Professor, as much as I nomally quite enjoy your posts which contain a broad mixture of intellect, rubbish, fact and fiction, and are often well presented, I think you have buried yourself in this thread. There is money in freight, there is money made by legacy cariers within freight operations.
CX has been a very good example of this for years. Your UPS comment is absolutely absurd. Perhaps FEDEX ,although not a legacy carrier, only uplift realestate brochures and the occasional gumball machine ??

Where is Ken Borough anyway, surely he has some input in this discussion ???
Cactusjack is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 16:40
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ferris - you saw the con note did ya. The ups had a pallett load of batts? Are you sure about that?

chards - CX freighter crew are on different contract than HKG based pax crew and you know it. Less money for same type.
AnQrKa is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2010, 18:52
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: World
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AnQrKa- I was responding to this:

"CX is another fine example of where the cargo fleet is operated separately to the passenger fleet. The pax overheads, namely labor costs, do not spill over to the cargo fleet."

The fact is that EVERY pilot on the pax 744 also flies the freighter at cx even though there are still old freighter only contracts. All new contracts are for the combined fleet, no differentiating between pax/freighter.
chards is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2010, 04:30
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
“You look especially stupid when you describe UPS as carrying 'small parcels', but not freight. WTF? The unfortunate crew of the UPS6 that crashed in Dubai recently might ask you if a pallet load of lithium batteries (that is believed to have caused the smoke) is considered 'not freight'.”

There appears to be a misunderstanding of what market segment UPS and FEDEX (DHL…) operate in. It is NOT the cargo hauling business. These companies are small package delivery services with a delivery network that literally covers the globe. They employ several hundred thousand people and operate over 100,000 delivery vehicles. This market has proven to be a very lucrative one.

The cargo hauling companies operated by LH,BA,CX,SQ etc are NOT players in this market.

“Your UPS comment is absolutely absurd. Perhaps FEDEX ,although not a legacy carrier, only uplift realestate brochures and the occasional gumball machine ??”

Mostly, yes.

You folk on this page argue in absolutes. Yes, of course there are legacy/old world/incumbent carriers hauling heavy cargo as part of the mainline business. But MOST carriers, especially western carriers saddled with high labor costs, do not.

“The fact is that EVERY pilot on the pax 744 also flies the freighter at cx even though there are still old freighter only contracts. All new contracts are for the combined fleet, no differentiating between pax/freighter.”

But most of CX cargo is hauled by non-mainline crew. And CX cargo is a separate business, as stated above.

If there is so much money to be made in cargo, why don’t we see a BA 744F on the ramp. Or AA. Or QF. Wouldn’t they be keen to grab a slice of this lucrative pie?
The Professor is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.