QF shares hit $2.00, discuss
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: on skybeds
Age: 43
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wait, there is more
when the pilots PIA is approved in a couple of weeks and they start working to the rules my tip is the share price goes to $ 1.40
However , I think the CEO has briefed major investors on this short term fluctuation.
The end game however........who knows
However , I think the CEO has briefed major investors on this short term fluctuation.
The end game however........who knows
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
As a shareholder[ small yes] I want the same briefings please AJ.
The whole market should be informed. That is the law.
The whole market should be informed. That is the law.
Moderator
Last sale $1.87 on 19.2 million shares for the day. I wonder why the increase on a day the markets dropped? Speculators or an institutional buyer?
"The stock has lost about a third of its value since November."
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Support Level
The support level for the stock seems to be $1.80 and at that price buyers pile in.Likely someone is topping up.Someone has information they are not sharing?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
ASX QAN short sales as of 24/6/11.
17% of the daily turnover was listed as short sales.
% of listed capital listed as short 0.10%
17% of the daily turnover was listed as short sales.
% of listed capital listed as short 0.10%
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
The share price has nowhere left to go, except down.
The cost cutting measures introduced by Darth around 2003, the fallout from those cuts, bad management decisions, disenchanted workforce and the list goes on of endless issues has helped lead QF to where it is today. No more fat left on the bone anymore.
Combine this with the global sh#tstorm that is imminent as evidenced by the financial condition of most of the worlds nations, and the next major crisis that will bite within the next 2 years - PEAK OIL, and you soon see why any airline today is a dud investment.
As for listening to J.P Morgan, Goldman, and others, they would sell you turds dressed up in gold dust and tell you to buy buy buy.
skybed,
Correct. $1.40 here it comes.
The cost cutting measures introduced by Darth around 2003, the fallout from those cuts, bad management decisions, disenchanted workforce and the list goes on of endless issues has helped lead QF to where it is today. No more fat left on the bone anymore.
Combine this with the global sh#tstorm that is imminent as evidenced by the financial condition of most of the worlds nations, and the next major crisis that will bite within the next 2 years - PEAK OIL, and you soon see why any airline today is a dud investment.
As for listening to J.P Morgan, Goldman, and others, they would sell you turds dressed up in gold dust and tell you to buy buy buy.
skybed,
when the pilots PIA is approved in a couple of weeks and they start working to the rules my tip is the share price goes to $ 1.40
Join Date: May 2011
Location: USA
Age: 51
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My bet - short covering.
Bets on that bounce from here, after greek wobbles are delayed for a bit once new package agreed.
Rally due, start of new financial year also might bring in buyers
Time will tell fun to watch the games
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A leading New Zealand aviation analyst has claimed it was cash, not ash, that grounded Qantas and Jetstar planes while plumes of Chilean volcano cloud hung over the Tasman Sea.
Looks like Uncle Alan has been hiding the money again!
More to Follow
The Kelpie
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nono kelpie he was right .... Cash in the form of more rightoffs to sign up to the international brand woohooo give it to them pilots aj they keep losing money don't they!!!
Nunc est bibendum
A leading New Zealand aviation analyst has claimed it was cash, not ash, that grounded Qantas and Jetstar planes while plumes of Chilean volcano cloud hung over the Tasman Sea.
So by all means argue the wisdom of flying or not but anyone who says that QF grounded the fleet to save money is either deluded or ignorant. Either way, they're crap at being an 'aviation analyst'.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with you Keg, when the normal rules apply I.e. you normally make money
I disagree with the propoganda the Tasman and NZ ops are profitable for QF group.
If you already have sold the tickets and then refuse to fly on the basis of "safety" and then convert the recovery flying into vastly increased load factors with disrupt pax then I can see the sense in not flying unprofitably if you dont have to.
Hmmmmm
I disagree with the propoganda the Tasman and NZ ops are profitable for QF group.
If you already have sold the tickets and then refuse to fly on the basis of "safety" and then convert the recovery flying into vastly increased load factors with disrupt pax then I can see the sense in not flying unprofitably if you dont have to.
Hmmmmm
Nunc est bibendum
Fair point Waren9 but aircraft lease payments still need to be made and a few full aeroplanes don't make up for having them parked. Wages are still paid, accommodation and food costs too. It's a pretty significant bill and I can't see them making up for it with a few full aeroplanes- particularly when a number of people just cancelled travel outright.
Keg,
Fair enough on your comments about analysts. However.....
Riddle me this....
If Qantas thought it safe to continue flying on some routes why was it unsafe to fly other routes?
Fair enough on your comments about analysts. However.....
Note too that QF still managed to get some of their JNB services where they needed to go- they did so by flying north of Mauritius and burning an extra 50 ton for the sector.
If Qantas thought it safe to continue flying on some routes why was it unsafe to fly other routes?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nunc est bibendum
27/09, QF re-routed flights to JNB. Out of Sydney they headed to Alice Springs before heading back south west towards Perth. Tech stop Perth and they then blasted off northwest by a long way to completely avoid any forecast/ known areas of ash- including not flying under any.
Bit hard to do that with NZ, ADL or MEL flights.
Bit hard to do that with NZ, ADL or MEL flights.
Message from the Real World
I'm with Keg. The analyst is a goose with an agenda from an even more insular, isolated country than Oz. He needs to think more before he publishes stupid stuff.
Here's how it all really happens in the operations departments of [most] airlines.
Obviously, no responsible airline is going to deliberately fly into an area notified to be ash affected. That would be dumb. Imagine the negative press if you came out the other side with ash damage. So all airlines are automatically going to route clear of VAAC declared ash areas. That should be a given, or your airline is being pretty cavalier.
So then you think, do we need to apply buffers to the defined altitudes and areas? For example if the lower limit is FL250, can we fly at FL240, FL245? So you go back to the VACC and try to define a policy. Horizontal buffers, 20 miles? 50 miles? same process.
I'd say that nearly all airlines stopped at this point, having applied what they each determined to be appropriate buffers - in some cases, those buffers might be zero.
At Qantas Group, the decision makers clearly asked one further question. 'What about gravity?' So they kick this concept around for a while and they come to the conclusion that volcanic particles, being heavier than air, might fall out the bottom of the defined areas. At what concentration? No one can tell them. So the decision is made to avoid flying under the defined areas. No safe buffer underneath. All the way down to Sea or Ground Level is No Go.
And that, friends, is how the Qantas Group policy came to be different to pretty much everyone else. Simple as that. Nothing to do with 'saving money' by not flying. You are still paying 35000 people whether your aircraft are flying or not, and lease costs and quite a few other unintended costs as well. [By that I mean, for example, hotel costs and expenses for some of the disrupted passengers, adverse publicity and long term brand damage].
Who's likely to be correct? No doubt this is currently exercising the minds of those involved with the decision making processes at the various airlines.
The Other Airlines [the better ones anyway] would be increasing their inspection schedules on aircraft operating in proximity to ensure that they were not the ones on the wrong side of the call.
At Qantas Group, of course they would not have to do that for verification, but possibly would be doing it anyway.
Would it have been possible to tell in advance who was going to be right? Not absolutely, but if you think about it, how often does it rain out of cirrus or cirrostratus clouds? In other words, does gravity have an effect on the tiny ice particles contained in these clouds or do they pretty much stay suspended for long periods, days and weeks, blowin' in the wind, so to speak?
How do these ice particles compare with volcanic silica in size and mass? Will the silica stay up there also, almost indefinitely? Or does it slowly fall out of the upper atmosphere? At what rate? Is there some sort of trigger that might precipitate a concentrated fallout from the upper atmosphere? What might that trigger be? Care to bet a plane load of passengers on your decision/ best guess?
The above is how airline operations departments think, when confronted by such problems, particularly those in cautious, safety conscious airlines.
Obviously, number crunchers like analysts and accountants have no idea. Unfortunately, these folk end up running airlines. More's the pity.
Here's how it all really happens in the operations departments of [most] airlines.
Obviously, no responsible airline is going to deliberately fly into an area notified to be ash affected. That would be dumb. Imagine the negative press if you came out the other side with ash damage. So all airlines are automatically going to route clear of VAAC declared ash areas. That should be a given, or your airline is being pretty cavalier.
So then you think, do we need to apply buffers to the defined altitudes and areas? For example if the lower limit is FL250, can we fly at FL240, FL245? So you go back to the VACC and try to define a policy. Horizontal buffers, 20 miles? 50 miles? same process.
I'd say that nearly all airlines stopped at this point, having applied what they each determined to be appropriate buffers - in some cases, those buffers might be zero.
At Qantas Group, the decision makers clearly asked one further question. 'What about gravity?' So they kick this concept around for a while and they come to the conclusion that volcanic particles, being heavier than air, might fall out the bottom of the defined areas. At what concentration? No one can tell them. So the decision is made to avoid flying under the defined areas. No safe buffer underneath. All the way down to Sea or Ground Level is No Go.
And that, friends, is how the Qantas Group policy came to be different to pretty much everyone else. Simple as that. Nothing to do with 'saving money' by not flying. You are still paying 35000 people whether your aircraft are flying or not, and lease costs and quite a few other unintended costs as well. [By that I mean, for example, hotel costs and expenses for some of the disrupted passengers, adverse publicity and long term brand damage].
Who's likely to be correct? No doubt this is currently exercising the minds of those involved with the decision making processes at the various airlines.
The Other Airlines [the better ones anyway] would be increasing their inspection schedules on aircraft operating in proximity to ensure that they were not the ones on the wrong side of the call.
At Qantas Group, of course they would not have to do that for verification, but possibly would be doing it anyway.
Would it have been possible to tell in advance who was going to be right? Not absolutely, but if you think about it, how often does it rain out of cirrus or cirrostratus clouds? In other words, does gravity have an effect on the tiny ice particles contained in these clouds or do they pretty much stay suspended for long periods, days and weeks, blowin' in the wind, so to speak?
How do these ice particles compare with volcanic silica in size and mass? Will the silica stay up there also, almost indefinitely? Or does it slowly fall out of the upper atmosphere? At what rate? Is there some sort of trigger that might precipitate a concentrated fallout from the upper atmosphere? What might that trigger be? Care to bet a plane load of passengers on your decision/ best guess?
The above is how airline operations departments think, when confronted by such problems, particularly those in cautious, safety conscious airlines.
Obviously, number crunchers like analysts and accountants have no idea. Unfortunately, these folk end up running airlines. More's the pity.