Qantas Indecisive and Complaining
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: on the point
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
767s
Been on a 767 to HNL lately?
J/C is woeful
Been to PER ex NRT lately?
J/C is woeful
These a/c should not be flying internationally without a cabin revamp
Qantas charges a premium for these seats and its a 90s product
Last time I was on a 747 it was to NRT and bits of the trim were hanging from the ceiling.Not a good look
How QF stays in the top 10 with Skytrax is one of life's great mysteries
J/C is woeful
Been to PER ex NRT lately?
J/C is woeful
These a/c should not be flying internationally without a cabin revamp
Qantas charges a premium for these seats and its a 90s product
Last time I was on a 747 it was to NRT and bits of the trim were hanging from the ceiling.Not a good look
How QF stays in the top 10 with Skytrax is one of life's great mysteries
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Keg,
Just out of interest, does that include the BA airframes? How old are those hulls?
Personally, I'm never disappointed to see a 76 at my gate. Fine aircraft. But then, I tend to sleep and read on an aircraft so bells & whistles don't really float my boat.
We don't have any that are 25 years old. We got OGA in '88 (30 Aug according to the docs) so it's just turned 22. OGV we got in 2000. First 13 aircraft arrived from 88 to '92. The rest of them turned up from '94 to 2000.
Personally, I'm never disappointed to see a 76 at my gate. Fine aircraft. But then, I tend to sleep and read on an aircraft so bells & whistles don't really float my boat.
Yep been to HNL and the aircraft like J class was looking very tired and aged. Flew Y but was surprised with the look of J class when walking through. Had difficult time placing carry on bag in overhead locker. Returned home in Star Class on JQ - and yes, it also reminded me of how QF J class was 10 years ago but I could use the overhead for same bag with room to spare.
Perhaps Sunfish needs to be educated with what QF do offer on the A380 in both 1st and J class - have been informed that they have a 'no bragging' policy and it is working well with pax flocking to the service, if only they had the new Boeings as well !
With regards to QF's Indecisive nature - surely it was started by and continued under the watch of GD and MJ in the Chair? etc. I as an outsider, could never understand why:
· JQ were 'gifted' new aircraft for their international operations when perhaps the AO 767's could have done the trick !!
· QF management allowed old and tired looking interiors operate against the startup with their new aircraft, i.e. HNL !!
· QF management put them up against QF AT ALL i.e. HNL !!
· JQ just didn't stick to the 8 hour destinations that AO did, e.g. Bali and 'new' destinations e.g. Phuket !!
· QF management consider Rome as a destination suitable for JQ and not QF !!
· QF management allowed the livery to be approved without any forward thinking regarding conversion to QF livery, i.e. Look at V Aus, the white body of QF and the tail that could have been Jet 'stars' !!
Perhaps Sunfish needs to be educated with what QF do offer on the A380 in both 1st and J class - have been informed that they have a 'no bragging' policy and it is working well with pax flocking to the service, if only they had the new Boeings as well !
With regards to QF's Indecisive nature - surely it was started by and continued under the watch of GD and MJ in the Chair? etc. I as an outsider, could never understand why:
· JQ were 'gifted' new aircraft for their international operations when perhaps the AO 767's could have done the trick !!
· QF management allowed old and tired looking interiors operate against the startup with their new aircraft, i.e. HNL !!
· QF management put them up against QF AT ALL i.e. HNL !!
· JQ just didn't stick to the 8 hour destinations that AO did, e.g. Bali and 'new' destinations e.g. Phuket !!
· QF management consider Rome as a destination suitable for JQ and not QF !!
· QF management allowed the livery to be approved without any forward thinking regarding conversion to QF livery, i.e. Look at V Aus, the white body of QF and the tail that could have been Jet 'stars' !!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: 41,000'
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T-Vasis, I'd say you're looking through one-eyed glasses. Every post is just QF propaganda.
QF are fine for choosing to go through Singapore and it makes sense, given the great circle route from Sydney to the UK inches past singa's. Good airport, economy of scale is there for hub operations etc etc. But from there...if you want to travel to anywhere else in Europe, QF have dropped the ball. And I think that's what everyone else is saying, and BA codeshare?? please Not everyone wants to fly low cost carrier in JQ.
Makes sense for V and Etihad to join together. Daily services, pooling of funds, plus exposure to each others network. More importantly for V tho, it opens up Europe to Australia and brings in Velocity points for flyers, something QF's FF program didn't want to share with Etihad. It's QF's big earner so maybe they didn't want to open it up, whereas Velocity is on the up so maybe less risk, who knows.
Either way it makes sense for both carriers...
Just a bit less propaganda thanks T-V! Rant over...
QF are fine for choosing to go through Singapore and it makes sense, given the great circle route from Sydney to the UK inches past singa's. Good airport, economy of scale is there for hub operations etc etc. But from there...if you want to travel to anywhere else in Europe, QF have dropped the ball. And I think that's what everyone else is saying, and BA codeshare?? please Not everyone wants to fly low cost carrier in JQ.
Makes sense for V and Etihad to join together. Daily services, pooling of funds, plus exposure to each others network. More importantly for V tho, it opens up Europe to Australia and brings in Velocity points for flyers, something QF's FF program didn't want to share with Etihad. It's QF's big earner so maybe they didn't want to open it up, whereas Velocity is on the up so maybe less risk, who knows.
Either way it makes sense for both carriers...
Just a bit less propaganda thanks T-V! Rant over...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 on the NRT/PER run from next roster
Only freight keeps it going.....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB had the right
idea, but he did not get the job and his vision.
He wanted to fly the B777LR from Lhr to Per. that would have giving the middle east carriers a run for their money. unfortunatly GD shut him down.
He wanted to fly the B777LR from Lhr to Per. that would have giving the middle east carriers a run for their money. unfortunatly GD shut him down.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBA - I only express the view as I was once exposed to the economics working in commercial areas of the business.
As for FCO - that was losing money for years. The VFR traffic did not deliver a return, nor did the J traffic offset the poor performance down the back...
JQ's lower cost base will do that.
That's the bottom line...
watch your6 - re your post on the QF767's on NRT, MNL and HNL etc - what do you propose QF does? The 78's are not here yet. Should they lease additional 330's? That might prove costly versus running a product that might be comparable to the competition currently deployed on those markets. What's Hawaiians 76's J product like etc.
Remember, the 78 delays have disrupted QF's fleet renewal program to no end...
Sunfish - Qantas is a business, and a business needs to deliver returns, in particular to shareholders. As a shareholder, I'm not impressed that I will not receive a dividend payment. Where is my return on this investment? I've already lost money in the value of my shares and now I won't see a return - I don't think that is good enough. And Qantas management has to consider that when it determines what an ‘acceptable return’ to the business is. Qantas needs to maintain its investment grade rating, which it has done so to-date. Without investment, you cannot survive on operating cash-flow alone...Qantas is not meeting its cost of capital currently - that concerns me...
You said Qantas should be competing on quality service and price? I am afraid that is poor business acumen. You can deliver all of that and run a loss (think Etihad). I don't think as an investor it is acceptable for Qantas to run at a loss, even if the 'quality of service' and/or 'price' is good. And I am sorry, but other publicly listed airlines who don't rely on governments or private equity to fund their operation operate in that manner, otherwise why would V withdraw from HKT and JNB? They can offer quality of service and price - how dare they decide to exit because these routes are not sustainable...
And really, Australia is an open playing field. Anyone can come in and just about to what they like, including starting their own airline. Remember, any US carrier can operate to AUS, but they choose not to. If it is so lucrative, why are they not here in droves?
This country is very liberal and 4 out of 5 seats for international traffic is on other carriers than Qantas. Qantas only has about 20 odd percent market share internationally these days - I am sorry, but that is not market dominance and Qantas competes with these carriers who enjoy a number of operational and commercial benefits not available to Qantas, an end-of-the-line operator.
Don't even start me on the ridiculous amount of corporate tax Qantas pay's...
With regards to the J class product which you believe is sub-standard - again, the data does not dictate that. MPS scores and the 19 million passengers reviewed in Skytrax survey's, determined the Qantas product is up-to-scratch, including Y+ as the best Y+. And the fact is, in particular with Skybed 2 on the A380, it is a great product and certainly leaves a number of other carriers for dead. I am not sure if you've flown on it recently and/or experienced a number of other carriers - I've flown J class on approx six different airlines including Qantas in the last two years and whilst I did not consider it the best (based on my preferences), it was certainly in the top three. As with every airline cabin - there are pro's and con's. You're never going to be 100% satisfied as everyone has their opinion on what should/could have been done to the product to suit their needs etc...
As for FCO - that was losing money for years. The VFR traffic did not deliver a return, nor did the J traffic offset the poor performance down the back...
JQ's lower cost base will do that.
That's the bottom line...
watch your6 - re your post on the QF767's on NRT, MNL and HNL etc - what do you propose QF does? The 78's are not here yet. Should they lease additional 330's? That might prove costly versus running a product that might be comparable to the competition currently deployed on those markets. What's Hawaiians 76's J product like etc.
Remember, the 78 delays have disrupted QF's fleet renewal program to no end...
Sunfish - Qantas is a business, and a business needs to deliver returns, in particular to shareholders. As a shareholder, I'm not impressed that I will not receive a dividend payment. Where is my return on this investment? I've already lost money in the value of my shares and now I won't see a return - I don't think that is good enough. And Qantas management has to consider that when it determines what an ‘acceptable return’ to the business is. Qantas needs to maintain its investment grade rating, which it has done so to-date. Without investment, you cannot survive on operating cash-flow alone...Qantas is not meeting its cost of capital currently - that concerns me...
You said Qantas should be competing on quality service and price? I am afraid that is poor business acumen. You can deliver all of that and run a loss (think Etihad). I don't think as an investor it is acceptable for Qantas to run at a loss, even if the 'quality of service' and/or 'price' is good. And I am sorry, but other publicly listed airlines who don't rely on governments or private equity to fund their operation operate in that manner, otherwise why would V withdraw from HKT and JNB? They can offer quality of service and price - how dare they decide to exit because these routes are not sustainable...
And really, Australia is an open playing field. Anyone can come in and just about to what they like, including starting their own airline. Remember, any US carrier can operate to AUS, but they choose not to. If it is so lucrative, why are they not here in droves?
This country is very liberal and 4 out of 5 seats for international traffic is on other carriers than Qantas. Qantas only has about 20 odd percent market share internationally these days - I am sorry, but that is not market dominance and Qantas competes with these carriers who enjoy a number of operational and commercial benefits not available to Qantas, an end-of-the-line operator.
Don't even start me on the ridiculous amount of corporate tax Qantas pay's...
With regards to the J class product which you believe is sub-standard - again, the data does not dictate that. MPS scores and the 19 million passengers reviewed in Skytrax survey's, determined the Qantas product is up-to-scratch, including Y+ as the best Y+. And the fact is, in particular with Skybed 2 on the A380, it is a great product and certainly leaves a number of other carriers for dead. I am not sure if you've flown on it recently and/or experienced a number of other carriers - I've flown J class on approx six different airlines including Qantas in the last two years and whilst I did not consider it the best (based on my preferences), it was certainly in the top three. As with every airline cabin - there are pro's and con's. You're never going to be 100% satisfied as everyone has their opinion on what should/could have been done to the product to suit their needs etc...
Last edited by PPRuNeUser0198; 2nd Sep 2010 at 14:01.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: sydney. australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been on here for quite a few years, and mostly keep my head down. But Sunfish has , in that time, never missed a chance to slam QF.
No doubt he has had justification ocasionally,but it becomes tedious at best, when most of his posts are attacking QF.
God man, if you dislike them so much , go away..leave them alone!
Travel elsewhere, and sell your shares.
Hatred for it's own reason is unhealthy, at best!
No doubt he has had justification ocasionally,but it becomes tedious at best, when most of his posts are attacking QF.
God man, if you dislike them so much , go away..leave them alone!
Travel elsewhere, and sell your shares.
Hatred for it's own reason is unhealthy, at best!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 on the NRT/PER run from next roster. Constant rumours re MNL and HNL.
FYI all MNL flights are A330 from Nov onwards.
Thanks
TV:
Taking your points one by one:
1. Yes, Qantas is a business. A highly inefficient business that has relied on the power of the "Chairmans Lounge" to lobby Governments for Forty years to protect it. It has engaged in the most egregious rent seeking behaviour for years, let alone the attempted privatisation.
The revenue QF makes is a direct function of bums on seats times price paid and what profit there may be belongs to the shareholders. It is they not Qantas who decide what the "acceptable" return is and the share price falls or rises until that level is reached, not the revenue. It is also the market, not Qantas, that decides if the shares are "investment grade" or not, and the travelling public are not required to give a rats fundament about your capital raising or cost of capital. That is a matter for your shareholders. This is basic capital markets theory. You have got it bass ackwards.
To put it another way, what you are suggesting is that as patronage falls, prices must rise. This line of thinking was immortalised years ago in a Harvard business school magazine article entitled: "The Thirty Seven Million dollar pair of shoes" which described this form of management behaviour.
What drives the QF revenue should be perceived value for money ie: quality of service, just like any other business. QF had that "value for money" reputation at least as late as 1990 in my opinion.
The other canard there is that "too big to fail" line implicit in your comments regarding a level playing field. Again, basic economic theory says that if someone is willing to sell you a quality product at below cost, then you are stupid not to take it. I used to lean towards QF being allowed a slight premium on the basis of national security, maintaining critical aerospace technologies and capabilities in Australia, but since QF declared war on its engineering workforce and outsourced every engineering function it can overseas, whats the point? Where are the 787 and A380's and their engines and rotables going to for heavy maintenance? Not here I think.
Then of course there is Qf's plan to outsource piloting to its Singaporean base on lower terms and conditions. SO where is QF's market differentiation now? Foreign built aircraft maintained by foreigners overseas and flown by foreign crews -- and we are supposed to line up and salute? Here a tip, outsource everything to Russia. Just get Aeroflot to paint their aircraft white with a Roo on the tail.
To put it another way, I think Government should reconsider whether supporting a national flag carrier like QF is still good economic sense. Open slather makes far more sense and lowers input costs for Australian businesses as well as maximises tourism income.
2. The reason nobody flies U.S. to Australia is that they know QF will be waiting here to gouge them for aircraft handling and maintenance. I know. Ansett was stopped by Peter Ables from challenging that little monopoly in 1983. I was the one suggesting it. I had letters of support from Pan AM(?), KLM and Lufthansa who dearly wanted to get out of QF's clutches. Etihad, Singapore, Thai, ANZ don't have this problem because they transit their own maintenance bases inside the old 24 hour MEL window.
If QF is losing market share, good. QF was told years ago by everyone NOT in NSW that we want direct flights to our overseas destinations without having to go through that Four hour hellhole in Sydney. You didn't listen, did you?
3. As for quality of service, I think Jetstar economy is your benchmark for that, not the A380. Once the novelty of the A380 has worn off, you can bet that the bean counters will close up seat pitches, cheese pare and try and screw yet more revenue out of them. You will do the same with the 787 in turn.
To summarise, I see no effort from QF to earn it's market share. The airline is still on the cost cutting, rent seeking, cheese paring, nickle and diming, path it was put on under Dixon or before. All it focuses on is costs, not on providing an excellent product for the average traveler, as the frustrations of all its staff, vented in Pprune from time to time, sadly testify.
Sunfish - Qantas is a business, and a business needs to deliver returns, in particular to shareholders. As a shareholder, I'm not impressed that I will not receive a dividend payment. Where is my return on this investment? I've already lost money in the value of my shares and now I won't see a return - I don't think that is good enough. And Qantas management has to consider that when it determines what an ‘acceptable return’ to the business is. Qantas needs to maintain its investment grade rating, which it has done so to-date. Without investment, you cannot survive on operating cash-flow alone...Qantas is not meeting its cost of capital currently - that concerns me...
You said Qantas should be competing on quality service and price? I am afraid that is poor business acumen. You can deliver all of that and run a loss (think Etihad). I don't think as an investor it is acceptable for Qantas to run at a loss, even if the 'quality of service' and/or 'price' is good. And I am sorry, but other publicly listed airlines who don't rely on governments or private equity to fund their operation operate in that manner, otherwise why would V withdraw from HKT and JNB? They can offer quality of service and price - how dare they decide to exit because these routes are not sustainable...
And really, Australia is an open playing field. Anyone can come in and just about to what they like, including starting their own airline. Remember, any US carrier can operate to AUS, but they choose not to. If it is so lucrative, why are they not here in droves?
This country is very liberal and 4 out of 5 seats for international traffic is on other carriers than Qantas. Qantas only has about 20 odd percent market share internationally these days - I am sorry, but that is not market dominance and Qantas competes with these carriers who enjoy a number of operational and commercial benefits not available to Qantas, an end-of-the-line operator.
Don't even start me on the ridiculous amount of corporate tax Qantas pay's...
With regards to the J class product which you believe is sub-standard - again, the data does not dictate that. MPS scores and the 19 million passengers reviewed in Skytrax survey's, determined the Qantas product is up-to-scratch, including Y+ as the best Y+. And the fact is, in particular with Skybed 2 on the A380, it is a great product and certainly leaves a number of other carriers for dead. I am not sure if you've flown on it recently and/or experienced a number of other carriers - I've flown J class on approx six different airlines including Qantas in the last two years and whilst I did not consider it the best (based on my preferences), it was certainly in the top three. As with every airline cabin - there are pro's and con's. You're never going to be 100% satisfied as everyone has their opinion on what should/could have been done to the product to suit their needs etc...
You said Qantas should be competing on quality service and price? I am afraid that is poor business acumen. You can deliver all of that and run a loss (think Etihad). I don't think as an investor it is acceptable for Qantas to run at a loss, even if the 'quality of service' and/or 'price' is good. And I am sorry, but other publicly listed airlines who don't rely on governments or private equity to fund their operation operate in that manner, otherwise why would V withdraw from HKT and JNB? They can offer quality of service and price - how dare they decide to exit because these routes are not sustainable...
And really, Australia is an open playing field. Anyone can come in and just about to what they like, including starting their own airline. Remember, any US carrier can operate to AUS, but they choose not to. If it is so lucrative, why are they not here in droves?
This country is very liberal and 4 out of 5 seats for international traffic is on other carriers than Qantas. Qantas only has about 20 odd percent market share internationally these days - I am sorry, but that is not market dominance and Qantas competes with these carriers who enjoy a number of operational and commercial benefits not available to Qantas, an end-of-the-line operator.
Don't even start me on the ridiculous amount of corporate tax Qantas pay's...
With regards to the J class product which you believe is sub-standard - again, the data does not dictate that. MPS scores and the 19 million passengers reviewed in Skytrax survey's, determined the Qantas product is up-to-scratch, including Y+ as the best Y+. And the fact is, in particular with Skybed 2 on the A380, it is a great product and certainly leaves a number of other carriers for dead. I am not sure if you've flown on it recently and/or experienced a number of other carriers - I've flown J class on approx six different airlines including Qantas in the last two years and whilst I did not consider it the best (based on my preferences), it was certainly in the top three. As with every airline cabin - there are pro's and con's. You're never going to be 100% satisfied as everyone has their opinion on what should/could have been done to the product to suit their needs etc...
1. Yes, Qantas is a business. A highly inefficient business that has relied on the power of the "Chairmans Lounge" to lobby Governments for Forty years to protect it. It has engaged in the most egregious rent seeking behaviour for years, let alone the attempted privatisation.
The revenue QF makes is a direct function of bums on seats times price paid and what profit there may be belongs to the shareholders. It is they not Qantas who decide what the "acceptable" return is and the share price falls or rises until that level is reached, not the revenue. It is also the market, not Qantas, that decides if the shares are "investment grade" or not, and the travelling public are not required to give a rats fundament about your capital raising or cost of capital. That is a matter for your shareholders. This is basic capital markets theory. You have got it bass ackwards.
To put it another way, what you are suggesting is that as patronage falls, prices must rise. This line of thinking was immortalised years ago in a Harvard business school magazine article entitled: "The Thirty Seven Million dollar pair of shoes" which described this form of management behaviour.
What drives the QF revenue should be perceived value for money ie: quality of service, just like any other business. QF had that "value for money" reputation at least as late as 1990 in my opinion.
The other canard there is that "too big to fail" line implicit in your comments regarding a level playing field. Again, basic economic theory says that if someone is willing to sell you a quality product at below cost, then you are stupid not to take it. I used to lean towards QF being allowed a slight premium on the basis of national security, maintaining critical aerospace technologies and capabilities in Australia, but since QF declared war on its engineering workforce and outsourced every engineering function it can overseas, whats the point? Where are the 787 and A380's and their engines and rotables going to for heavy maintenance? Not here I think.
Then of course there is Qf's plan to outsource piloting to its Singaporean base on lower terms and conditions. SO where is QF's market differentiation now? Foreign built aircraft maintained by foreigners overseas and flown by foreign crews -- and we are supposed to line up and salute? Here a tip, outsource everything to Russia. Just get Aeroflot to paint their aircraft white with a Roo on the tail.
To put it another way, I think Government should reconsider whether supporting a national flag carrier like QF is still good economic sense. Open slather makes far more sense and lowers input costs for Australian businesses as well as maximises tourism income.
2. The reason nobody flies U.S. to Australia is that they know QF will be waiting here to gouge them for aircraft handling and maintenance. I know. Ansett was stopped by Peter Ables from challenging that little monopoly in 1983. I was the one suggesting it. I had letters of support from Pan AM(?), KLM and Lufthansa who dearly wanted to get out of QF's clutches. Etihad, Singapore, Thai, ANZ don't have this problem because they transit their own maintenance bases inside the old 24 hour MEL window.
If QF is losing market share, good. QF was told years ago by everyone NOT in NSW that we want direct flights to our overseas destinations without having to go through that Four hour hellhole in Sydney. You didn't listen, did you?
3. As for quality of service, I think Jetstar economy is your benchmark for that, not the A380. Once the novelty of the A380 has worn off, you can bet that the bean counters will close up seat pitches, cheese pare and try and screw yet more revenue out of them. You will do the same with the 787 in turn.
To summarise, I see no effort from QF to earn it's market share. The airline is still on the cost cutting, rent seeking, cheese paring, nickle and diming, path it was put on under Dixon or before. All it focuses on is costs, not on providing an excellent product for the average traveler, as the frustrations of all its staff, vented in Pprune from time to time, sadly testify.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Myerflyer,
You are correct, I had only just looked quickly at patterns for next roster, the PER and NRT on same trip but not direct [SYD/PER/MEL/SYD/NRT/SYD]
MNL from Nov.
You are correct, I had only just looked quickly at patterns for next roster, the PER and NRT on same trip but not direct [SYD/PER/MEL/SYD/NRT/SYD]
MNL from Nov.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: HKG
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Succinctly put Sunfish. As you suggest, long run 'choice' revolves around:
Nevertheless, a real conundrum is in the making. Ie
- Continued ‘Government Support’ for the national flag carrier on the basis of national security, maintaining critical aerospace technologies and capabilities in Australia, and
- ‘Open Slather’ to lower input costs for Australian businesses and maximise tourism income.
Nevertheless, a real conundrum is in the making. Ie
- Australia won’t retain critical aerospace technologies and capabilities if 787’s and A380's and their engines and rotable heavy maintenance goes offshore V Liberalisation outcomes [Jetstar Asia] designed to lower input costs and maximise tourism income will all but guarantee 787’s and A380's and their engines and rotable heavy maintenance goes offshore.
