Qantas~ A Business in Decline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There may be other considerations
most comments here relate to how Dixon & Co st**ed the airline and since AJ came nothing has changed. They QF management continues to go down the same path. 
anyone takes into account the political game. by that i mean make things look so bad that the pollies agree th change the QF sales act so the integration into the BA/Iberia new company structure isn't too difficult?
anyone takes into account the political game. by that i mean make things look so bad that the pollies agree th change the QF sales act so the integration into the BA/Iberia new company structure isn't too difficult?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: YBBN
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'You, as an individual are not significant enough to our business for us to care about very much. If you leave we have thousands of other customers who will stay."
And under VALUES DRIVE BEHAVIOURS,
Please take the time to read and remember these;
Safety - I demonstrate a genuine commitment to safety.
Service - I have a can-do attitude and I deliver my part of the customer promise.
Innovation. I challange the way things are done and take ownership for finding a better way.
Colloboration - I work with other to create a winning culture and an enjoyable place to work.
Integrity. I am open, I listen and speak honestly and respectfully.
Please take the time to read and remember these;
Safety - I demonstrate a genuine commitment to safety.
Service - I have a can-do attitude and I deliver my part of the customer promise.
Innovation. I challange the way things are done and take ownership for finding a better way.
Colloboration - I work with other to create a winning culture and an enjoyable place to work.
Integrity. I am open, I listen and speak honestly and respectfully.
It's how I imagine north korea would be like, with all these types of inspirational quotes littered across buildings.
Its also predictable, funny that when big profits are forecast 'we're in trouble' and funny that its also EA negotiation crunch time. The management in this company must only learn one method of employee tactics during their studies.
And the latest Qantas Engineering newsletter (Leading Edge) has CN saying how he'd 'love' to keep the work in AVV but '...I dunno we're just not competitive enough.. if only they would be able to ensure some 'stability' with the workforce and no nasty industrial suprises' - read SIGN THE F&&KEN EA NOW OR ELSE
Added to the previous Leading Edge and the one before that as well, CN sending some subliminal messages that industrial disruption will only hurt the workforce, your 'customer' doesn't care where he gets it from, he just wants it. Qantas Engineering's biggest customer = Qantas. - read DON'T F**K WITH US, JUST SIGN THE EBA OR ELSE
Management 101 - FUD
And once again its the employee's fault that Qantas made decisions 10 years ago that were wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble comes when the individuals start deserting the business enmasse,
You can try running "engagement" surveys and seminars as often as you like. Until management have a self-imposed culture change or the QF Board start doing their job, you'll have 36,000 disengaged staff who will unintentionally be "disengaging" the customers.
It's at about this point the CEO will announce to the world - "We have a problem".
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: King country
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leave Now.Avoid The Rush
Early on when Bow tie turned up he tried to change the culture and initially failed.Some boffin came up with idea of putting the work force under pressure.This supposedly achieved two things.Firstly it was determined that a work force under pressure was more efficient.Secondly those that couldnt take the pressure would leave and the attrition would rise to a more appropriate level~ around 8%.In the beginning it worked.Well sort of.Those that had been there longest and had the most experienced left in dribs and drabs It was most likely their time anyway.They could not tolerate being treated like a five year by some pimple faced kid.Fear was the weapon of choice along with KPIs.Initally there was fear amongst the workforce.This turned to anger and resentment.Finally it turned to disengagement.The attrition rate never reached 8%
The attitude of the workforce became "I'm staying just to see these bastards off".There was also the hope that someone from outside would come in ,see the problems and correct them.Or that Borghetti would get the big gig .A vain hope as it turns out.
The only CEO in this neck of the woods who stands a chance of fixing QFs problems is Rob Fyfe of Air NZ.He turned that place around.He has the approach ,the systems and protocols to do it.He has a proven track record.
Please no one suggest Eddington.He is actually worse than Dixon
The attitude of the workforce became "I'm staying just to see these bastards off".There was also the hope that someone from outside would come in ,see the problems and correct them.Or that Borghetti would get the big gig .A vain hope as it turns out.
The only CEO in this neck of the woods who stands a chance of fixing QFs problems is Rob Fyfe of Air NZ.He turned that place around.He has the approach ,the systems and protocols to do it.He has a proven track record.
Please no one suggest Eddington.He is actually worse than Dixon
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did happen to those survey results....
actually millet - good point
what did every happen to those engagement survey results that were promised to be published...........AJ has failed to deliver on that one!
the safety survey results if used as a guide suggests the words 'crash & burn' may be good descriptors
still expect a fortnight of spin and beat up stories and shareholder suck ups ahead of the orange/rose coloured glasses profit announcement ...............bet they even try to make the 380 incident a shining testimonial to their safety and management!
AT
what did every happen to those engagement survey results that were promised to be published...........AJ has failed to deliver on that one!
the safety survey results if used as a guide suggests the words 'crash & burn' may be good descriptors
still expect a fortnight of spin and beat up stories and shareholder suck ups ahead of the orange/rose coloured glasses profit announcement ...............bet they even try to make the 380 incident a shining testimonial to their safety and management!
AT
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuff/Staff Surveys ?
Don't know why they bother.
They just keep on getting worse.
Joyce set the bar for engagement at 60% with a two year time frame.
The last survey was 20%.There is less than six months left of the time frame.
Reckon they'll do it? Ha Ha Ha ho Ho Hee Hee.Not bloody likely
They just keep on getting worse.
Joyce set the bar for engagement at 60% with a two year time frame.
The last survey was 20%.There is less than six months left of the time frame.
Reckon they'll do it? Ha Ha Ha ho Ho Hee Hee.Not bloody likely
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was most likely their time anyway.
The problem with rule by fear and other attempts to cull your workforce by intimidation is that it's often the competent, marketable people who leave (firstly because they can get other jobs and secondly because they have the drive to actually do it). This leaves your company with a lot of dead wood and disengaged people who can't leave (for one reason or another), and don't care anymore.
The same thing happened in the Qld education department when they offered voluntary redundancy in the hope that the crap teachers would leave. Surprise, surprise, the good teachers took the money and ran to other professions and the crap teachers are all still there.
I could never understand the Qantas 'stressed workforce is an efficient workforce' mantra, because humans are only efficient under short term stress, not long term stress. Judicious use of workplace stress is good to get deadlines met and short term goals achieved, but it's not an effective long term motivator. People get tired and jaded or they leave.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 5th Feb 2011 at 05:59.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beyond The Envelope
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management By Consultancy
There was a time when Qantas spent $30mil pa on consultants.Pretty much wasted money.
The stressed workforce idea came from BCG:Boston Consulting Group.
With consultants if the idea is implemented and fails you can blame them.
If the idea is a success you can claim the kudos for bringing them onboard.
Bonuses and consultants are a conundrum.
Why do you then need consultants when you are paying your executives big bucks to do their job well?Then you turn around and pay them a bonus to do their job better.
Shouldnt they already be doing their job to the best of their ability?
Only answer can be that everyone is on the gravy train.
You can then compel the workforce to tighten their belts through EBAs to make up any shortfall.
Wait a minute thats why executives earn big money.They know how to trough dive.Not run a company profitably but line their own pockets.
They get paid big money to make big money..... for themselves
When the company fails they move onto the next corporation and the cycle begins all over again.
Dixons over at Tourism Australia beginning his next cycle
The stressed workforce idea came from BCG:Boston Consulting Group.
With consultants if the idea is implemented and fails you can blame them.
If the idea is a success you can claim the kudos for bringing them onboard.
Bonuses and consultants are a conundrum.
Why do you then need consultants when you are paying your executives big bucks to do their job well?Then you turn around and pay them a bonus to do their job better.
Shouldnt they already be doing their job to the best of their ability?
Only answer can be that everyone is on the gravy train.
You can then compel the workforce to tighten their belts through EBAs to make up any shortfall.
Wait a minute thats why executives earn big money.They know how to trough dive.Not run a company profitably but line their own pockets.
They get paid big money to make big money..... for themselves
When the company fails they move onto the next corporation and the cycle begins all over again.
Dixons over at Tourism Australia beginning his next cycle
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
................BCG and Lady McBeth Bruce...WTF!!!
......suggest that clients and misguided followers of the aforementioned learn that its must cheaper and far more profitable to grasp a little more foresight and a little less foreskin
AT
BTW: Why does Super Bruce and the other JQ Execs responsible for the selling off farm choose QF P class rather than the JQ seats for their regular hops to SIN........guess they must like QF pilots after all
......suggest that clients and misguided followers of the aforementioned learn that its must cheaper and far more profitable to grasp a little more foresight and a little less foreskin
AT
BTW: Why does Super Bruce and the other JQ Execs responsible for the selling off farm choose QF P class rather than the JQ seats for their regular hops to SIN........guess they must like QF pilots after all
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Perffff
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from everything else that has been said, QF need to start looking after their loyal pax too! QF Club, Platinum FF etc... even they are starting to feel the pinch as the cost cutting continues... QF Club = self check-in now just like a 'Red E Deal' punter, same for a Platinum FF... That's just the start!
Once those DJ A330's crank up of domestic services watch these former loyal QF pax walk...
BB
Once those DJ A330's crank up of domestic services watch these former loyal QF pax walk...
BB
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF pilots are already the highest paid by far in the region and yet some complain as though they are working in a salt mine.
Imagine the noise when the real wage cuts come and layoffs happen and the 787 is crewed by a separate contract.
Imagine the noise when the real wage cuts come and layoffs happen and the 787 is crewed by a separate contract.
From today's Age newspaper:
Jetstar, not Qantas, as our national airline? Stay tuned
Jetstar, not Qantas, as our national airline? Stay tuned
James Kirby
February 6, 2011
IT'S SHOCKING really … but who was surprised that Qantas, having promised to get stranded Australians out of Egypt, left them waiting another 13 hours in the hell of Cairo airport due to ''technical problems''.
I don't doubt the endless mechanical failures and depressurisation incidents we hear every other day are overblown.
No doubt they have always occurred routinely: it's just that passengers armed with Facebook, Twitter and video cameras didn't act as vigilante reporters in days gone by.
Still, the dismal diary of ''incidents'' reported at Qantas is surely filling to the point where the brand - once the best in Australia - is a shadow of its former self.
Moreover, beyond such intangibles as brand decay, there are verifiable facts surrounding Qantas Airways - the ASX-listed holding company that covers all the subsidiaries - which are simply inescapable.
In the case of Qantas International, the company is stuck with archaically old planes and the attempts to refresh the fleet have been delayed, significantly with the dramatic problems in the A380s.
The ''super jumbos'' were shaping up as a potential favourite among travellers until one of them had to make an emergency landing in Asia before Christmas.
The other plain truth about Qantas Airways is that strategically it is being sandwiched - rival global carriers such as Etihad are coming down hard, while its offshoot, Jetstar, is a better business on almost every measure and is moving upmarket.
No surprise then to hear that Alan Joyce, the former Ryanair and Jetstar executive who is head of Qantas Airways, is to run a strategic review of the airline.
There is talk of joint ventures, of a renewed thrust into China and other initiatives.
Yet while Joyce hints at these changes, he also comes out with very negative comments about Qantas International - last week he said the division was falling ''significantly short of expectations''.
Meanwhile, Qantas stock is steady … in fact in recent days, despite a new fuel surcharge, the share price has started to lift.
Why?
Well, virtually every stockbroker in the market reckons Qantas Airways is a buy - the stock closed for the weekend at $2.41 yet the 12-month price targets from brokers range between $3 and $3.70.
The optimistic forecasts follow suggestions from analysts that Jetstar is now so strong - especially in Asia - it can deal with the drag imposed by Qantas International.
But you'd have to think that Joyce, himself a product of the low-budget Jetstar (and earlier of the ultra low-budget Ryanair), would have to consider closing down Qantas International as a potential way out of the conundrum he faces as boss of the whole show.
Joyce is highly regarded by many in the industry - crucially he has shown the ability to respond in a decisive manner to every issue thrown at him, including the unprecedented spectacle of European airports closed en masse due to clouds of Icelandic volcanic ash.
But would he move to close Qantas International, leaving us with a national airline called Jetstar? … I wouldn't rule it out; Jetstar now has the potential to be a better brand than Qantas.
February 6, 2011
IT'S SHOCKING really … but who was surprised that Qantas, having promised to get stranded Australians out of Egypt, left them waiting another 13 hours in the hell of Cairo airport due to ''technical problems''.
I don't doubt the endless mechanical failures and depressurisation incidents we hear every other day are overblown.
No doubt they have always occurred routinely: it's just that passengers armed with Facebook, Twitter and video cameras didn't act as vigilante reporters in days gone by.
Still, the dismal diary of ''incidents'' reported at Qantas is surely filling to the point where the brand - once the best in Australia - is a shadow of its former self.
Moreover, beyond such intangibles as brand decay, there are verifiable facts surrounding Qantas Airways - the ASX-listed holding company that covers all the subsidiaries - which are simply inescapable.
In the case of Qantas International, the company is stuck with archaically old planes and the attempts to refresh the fleet have been delayed, significantly with the dramatic problems in the A380s.
The ''super jumbos'' were shaping up as a potential favourite among travellers until one of them had to make an emergency landing in Asia before Christmas.
The other plain truth about Qantas Airways is that strategically it is being sandwiched - rival global carriers such as Etihad are coming down hard, while its offshoot, Jetstar, is a better business on almost every measure and is moving upmarket.
No surprise then to hear that Alan Joyce, the former Ryanair and Jetstar executive who is head of Qantas Airways, is to run a strategic review of the airline.
There is talk of joint ventures, of a renewed thrust into China and other initiatives.
Yet while Joyce hints at these changes, he also comes out with very negative comments about Qantas International - last week he said the division was falling ''significantly short of expectations''.
Meanwhile, Qantas stock is steady … in fact in recent days, despite a new fuel surcharge, the share price has started to lift.
Why?
Well, virtually every stockbroker in the market reckons Qantas Airways is a buy - the stock closed for the weekend at $2.41 yet the 12-month price targets from brokers range between $3 and $3.70.
The optimistic forecasts follow suggestions from analysts that Jetstar is now so strong - especially in Asia - it can deal with the drag imposed by Qantas International.
But you'd have to think that Joyce, himself a product of the low-budget Jetstar (and earlier of the ultra low-budget Ryanair), would have to consider closing down Qantas International as a potential way out of the conundrum he faces as boss of the whole show.
Joyce is highly regarded by many in the industry - crucially he has shown the ability to respond in a decisive manner to every issue thrown at him, including the unprecedented spectacle of European airports closed en masse due to clouds of Icelandic volcanic ash.
But would he move to close Qantas International, leaving us with a national airline called Jetstar? … I wouldn't rule it out; Jetstar now has the potential to be a better brand than Qantas.
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
Well, virtually every stockbroker in the market reckons Qantas Airways is a buy - the stock closed for the weekend at $2.41 yet the 12-month price targets from brokers range between $3 and $3.70
Airlines as an investment are a dead horse. High risks for minimal return at best.
More 'woes' will come for the group when the 787 Composite Liner comes on line. New aircraft type always give executives a massive hard-on due to the excitement and great publicity, but reality is that new aircraft types spell teething problems which causes some financial loss, which The Rat cannnot afford at this point in time.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beyond The Envelope
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alcohol Fueled Journalism
When you read that piece above from "The Age" you must wonder how much alcohol the journo had consumed when he was writing it.
Warren Buffett wouldnt touch airline stocks with a ten foot pole.Qantas hasnt paid a diviend for three years.Its a $2.80 share...max
Qantas languishes because all the money that should've been spent there was diverted to JetStar.Jetstars bottom line is propped up by cost apportioning.Through smoke and mirrors accounting Qantas mainline absorbs the parasites costs.When costs are reduced profits should surge.
Alan Joyce is well respected...by whom?.His Mum?
Qantas maintenance is a shadow of its former self.The problem with the Rollers on the A380 would've been picked up by the engineering department of 10 years ago
Qantas has survived on luck not good managment.Qantas domestic experienced 7 years growth with Ansetts demise.It maintained its domestic position because Godfrey didnt havwe clue how to run an airline.QF is about to get a run for its money from Virgin now Borghetti is in charge.
Dixon used SARS to introduce a wage freeze.A freeze the employees agreed to for the benefit of the company.Essentially that freeze still exists.Qantas has reduced its wages bill by 20% over the last 6 years.Its workforce is more producitive and less expensive than they have ever been.This bull about legacy carrier costs has worn a bit thin.
The only real problem that Qantas has with any thing "legacy" is with its computers systems.They are still a mess.Most of the systems dont/cant talk to aech other.Another five years and they might just might get it right.Further give mainline some nice shiny new aircraft and the high yield travellers will return.
Management has shrunk the network to a point where its pretty much useless to the corporate traveller.Fly to ME and you have entree to Europe,Scandinavia and Russia.The big bonus is you get to bypass Heathrow(aka Deathrow).
Qantas is slowly dying because of incompetence and the parasite called JetStar.Not because of geography or unfair competion.Look at Air New Zealand.it faces the same problems.Considering the size of the EnZed market it appears to being just fine.Then again it has Rob Fyfe in the LH seat and not Joyce
Warren Buffett wouldnt touch airline stocks with a ten foot pole.Qantas hasnt paid a diviend for three years.Its a $2.80 share...max
Qantas languishes because all the money that should've been spent there was diverted to JetStar.Jetstars bottom line is propped up by cost apportioning.Through smoke and mirrors accounting Qantas mainline absorbs the parasites costs.When costs are reduced profits should surge.
Alan Joyce is well respected...by whom?.His Mum?
Qantas maintenance is a shadow of its former self.The problem with the Rollers on the A380 would've been picked up by the engineering department of 10 years ago
Qantas has survived on luck not good managment.Qantas domestic experienced 7 years growth with Ansetts demise.It maintained its domestic position because Godfrey didnt havwe clue how to run an airline.QF is about to get a run for its money from Virgin now Borghetti is in charge.
Dixon used SARS to introduce a wage freeze.A freeze the employees agreed to for the benefit of the company.Essentially that freeze still exists.Qantas has reduced its wages bill by 20% over the last 6 years.Its workforce is more producitive and less expensive than they have ever been.This bull about legacy carrier costs has worn a bit thin.
The only real problem that Qantas has with any thing "legacy" is with its computers systems.They are still a mess.Most of the systems dont/cant talk to aech other.Another five years and they might just might get it right.Further give mainline some nice shiny new aircraft and the high yield travellers will return.
Management has shrunk the network to a point where its pretty much useless to the corporate traveller.Fly to ME and you have entree to Europe,Scandinavia and Russia.The big bonus is you get to bypass Heathrow(aka Deathrow).
Qantas is slowly dying because of incompetence and the parasite called JetStar.Not because of geography or unfair competion.Look at Air New Zealand.it faces the same problems.Considering the size of the EnZed market it appears to being just fine.Then again it has Rob Fyfe in the LH seat and not Joyce
Last edited by Ka.Boom; 5th Feb 2011 at 23:57.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ka.Boom
Look at Air New Zealand.it faces the same problems.Considering the size of the EnZed market it appears to being just fine.
Regarding network; well you need to be fairer in your commentary. You must remember the world is made up of many bilateral agreements - it's not all "openskies" as it is in Australia. The government has done wrong by Australian airlines (and I refer to all of them), but done right for the punter.
Were do you propose Qantas operates internationally? Remember, Singapore is Qantas's hub, so any points from Singapore into Europe need to not be limited by bilateral constraints...Yet this is just the reason why Qantas is so limited.
Again we look at markets like Paris. Singapore airlines and Air France enjoy unlimited operates between the two points, yet Qantas is only limited to thrice weekly. If you believe you can make a market work on thrice weekly - you're dreaming. The "premium" customer seeks primarily frequency and convenience in their travels. Who are they going to go with - two airlines that can offer daily services or one where they have to wait? You have to be a realist here - it is simple economics. Give Qantas daily rights in Paris and I guarantee they would return.
Rome was never profitable. It was a VFR market and did not deliver an acceptable return.
I am sure Qantas would love to operate into more European cities, however if the bilateral constraints prevent that from happening - why should they be blamed.
Why is it okay for other airlines to dump as much capacity (greater than demand) into this country, but Qantas is not able to do the same?
The Middle East is the same argument - Qantas is unable to secure daily services between the Middle East and London - what is the point if they cannot offer the premium customer that service - what that customer demands? That's why they set up the codeshare with Etihad - that is why they set up the codeshare with Air France (not even in the same alliance).
And before you say Qantas should start hubbing from another city - that is unrealistic. The whole hub-and-spoke model requires feeder traffic into the hub for onward spoke. Operating one service through one port on to the other, does not work - that's where you need point-to-point - however there is no aircraft capable to deliver on this need. If Qantas could operate direct from Sydney to say Zurich with a bilateral that was not restricted, then it may just be viable, and of-course would deliver the convenience of "no stops" for the customer - especially attractive to the premium customer who would avoid a hub...
So not only does Qantas need the appropriate flexibility with a bilateral, it needs to also be viable. Qantas has the second highest labour costs of any airline in the world - the exception being Japan Airlines which was higher - and look at what has happened to them. I am only pointing out labour costs here to make a point. Qantas even pays higher corporate tax than any other airline I am aware of. After all costs, Qantas still needs to deliver an appropriate return on that market - that's a given. It makes it very difficult when your dealing with competitors that enjoy significantly lower unit costs, funding from governments or private equity and have differing agendas, and now especially from LCC's which are killing legacy carriers as consumers demand lower fares - it makes it very difficult for Qantas to remain competitive, whilst delivery the returns shareholders expect - as you all would if you were a shareholder.
Qantas isn't even meeting cost-of-capital on its international operations. That's pretty serious. If you cannot even service your debt, you've got problems. Yes, Qantas has a few billion tied up in cash - but that's needed to buffer the airline through turbulent periods.
Qantas also needs to ensure it maintains its current five star investment rating - this is critical. Otherwise it makes it very hard to secure capital.
Whilst I don't agree with all of Qantas' strategic decisions, especially with their fleet renewal plan (two new aircraft technologies) which has hurt Qantas significantly as a result of the delays to both aircraft types - end-of-the-line carriers (with such a small population) does suffer disadvantages.
Just look at the number of international carriers into Australia today...with basically no limits.
Someone might argue - well why doesn't Qantas add the same capacity to some of these carriers bases i.e. Hong Kong with Cathy. For the simple fact that Hong Kong is not a natural destination. Europe is. Cathay can offer customers a plethora of European destinations from Hong Kong. Qantas cannot - only London and again, not even daily. Whereas for Cathay "owning a hub" operating into Australia is gold since they can offer the customer a more attractive travel option and with scale benefits - sharper pricing.
Now - before you get emotional in your responses - please be objective when reviewing my response and commenting...
Last edited by PPRuNeUser0198; 6th Feb 2011 at 00:44.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all, I'm just a PAX that flies regularly with QF so feel free to take this with a grain of salt as its an outsiders view/perspective.
The staff I have encountered on QF Mainline are all fantastic. I always enjoy going up to the cockpit at the end of a flight and saying hello and seeing whats up there. I would feel safer on a mainline flight with a mainline crew than I would on any other airline.
However the thing that seems to be screwing them at the moment is the decisions in fleet purchasing/upgrading that were made at the start of the decade.
Whilst new technology looks fantastic on paper, it is not always the thing that is on paper that is delivered. The rev A of any product has its bugs, and this seems to be the issue qantas is facing now and the issue they blissfully ignored when purchasing the A380 and 787. Any new product is going to have its bugs and especially when its this complex and such a huge project, you should not expect it to run on time. The other thing QF seemed to not take into account was oil prices. With global demand booming for transport and logistics, and a decreasing supply, I don't see how they could justify not upgrading the fleet sooner, Some of the older birds must be a bit inefficient.
Which brings me to the 777. To be honest, qantas should have just bit the bullet and ordered a bunch of them. Proven technology, reliability, better fuel economy on long haul ops.
The last thing that occurs to me (This is a student doing a large commerce component at uni).
Getting RR to service the 380 engines in house is a hazard as they may not feel the need to report all the issues to QF. The main advantage to doing engine maintenance in house (wherever that may be) is that you will know exactly what is going on with the planes. The issue with outsourcing it to others (especially the manufacturer) is that they may not have the desire for you to know everything that is going on with the engines. If there is an issue they may not want to tell you about it, and just keep it to themselves... If this issue were to be faced with all other aircraft issue it could end up costing QF dearly in the long run. Having said this, I'm an outsider and really don't know what is going on. It all comes down to human nature, if the maintenance contractors for QF can find a way of saving a dollar, they will. You've go to make sure the quality control is there.
Most of the crap (minor incidents) in the media about qf 'incidents' happens on a daily basis however its not reported in the media.
Also, as a pax, nothing beats upstairs on a 744.. Much prefer it to the 380... But I like Boeings. *shrug*
The staff I have encountered on QF Mainline are all fantastic. I always enjoy going up to the cockpit at the end of a flight and saying hello and seeing whats up there. I would feel safer on a mainline flight with a mainline crew than I would on any other airline.
However the thing that seems to be screwing them at the moment is the decisions in fleet purchasing/upgrading that were made at the start of the decade.
Whilst new technology looks fantastic on paper, it is not always the thing that is on paper that is delivered. The rev A of any product has its bugs, and this seems to be the issue qantas is facing now and the issue they blissfully ignored when purchasing the A380 and 787. Any new product is going to have its bugs and especially when its this complex and such a huge project, you should not expect it to run on time. The other thing QF seemed to not take into account was oil prices. With global demand booming for transport and logistics, and a decreasing supply, I don't see how they could justify not upgrading the fleet sooner, Some of the older birds must be a bit inefficient.
Which brings me to the 777. To be honest, qantas should have just bit the bullet and ordered a bunch of them. Proven technology, reliability, better fuel economy on long haul ops.
The last thing that occurs to me (This is a student doing a large commerce component at uni).
Getting RR to service the 380 engines in house is a hazard as they may not feel the need to report all the issues to QF. The main advantage to doing engine maintenance in house (wherever that may be) is that you will know exactly what is going on with the planes. The issue with outsourcing it to others (especially the manufacturer) is that they may not have the desire for you to know everything that is going on with the engines. If there is an issue they may not want to tell you about it, and just keep it to themselves... If this issue were to be faced with all other aircraft issue it could end up costing QF dearly in the long run. Having said this, I'm an outsider and really don't know what is going on. It all comes down to human nature, if the maintenance contractors for QF can find a way of saving a dollar, they will. You've go to make sure the quality control is there.
Most of the crap (minor incidents) in the media about qf 'incidents' happens on a daily basis however its not reported in the media.
Also, as a pax, nothing beats upstairs on a 744.. Much prefer it to the 380... But I like Boeings. *shrug*
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then for arguments sake, why compete in those markets? Would it be better to concentrate on short haul Int'l to and from Austalia and leave the longer routes to the codeshare partners? Would the cost saving you gained outweigh the money you'd lose by sacrificing those long haul routes?