American Airlines CEO: Qantas not a "premium" airline
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A cheap seat at the front of a 777 :-)
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American Airlines CEO: Qantas not a "premium" airline
Interesting observations from the CEO of AA :
American Airlines CEO: Qantas not a "premium" airline - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller
American Airlines CEO: Qantas not a "premium" airline - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller
I would not have thought that any CEO of a US carrier is in a position to tell what is a premium carrier. Perhaps AA's CEO should clean up his own ailrine before he casts aspersions on others. 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, yes, yes!
Finally, Clifford and AJ are on the nose with in the industry and it's long standing partner friend American Airlines. To the Australian business press reporters, put that in your pipe and smoke it! Spin that one Wirthless!
Ken B, sorry mate, I really don't agree with you, why do you want to protect people at Q who are happy to sack hard working people at a stroke of a pen? Sometimes it is best to say nothing. Your comments show disrespect to fellow Australians on here who are worried whether they will have a job or not after the 24th August. This simple fact doesn't seem to to bother you at all.
Sitting in US headquarters, Gerard Arpey has to be wondering what Qantas' CEO Alan Joyce is up to with Jetstar. From the perspective of the US airline industry, low-cost carriers affiliated with legacy airlines just don't work.
Delta Air Lines attempted a low-cost move with Song, moving 48 of its Boeing 757 planes into a subsidiary with a low-cost model to try to compete with new airlines like JetBlue. Song only lasted three years, from 2003 to 2006.
Delta Air Lines attempted a low-cost move with Song, moving 48 of its Boeing 757 planes into a subsidiary with a low-cost model to try to compete with new airlines like JetBlue. Song only lasted three years, from 2003 to 2006.
Ken B, sorry mate, I really don't agree with you, why do you want to protect people at Q who are happy to sack hard working people at a stroke of a pen? Sometimes it is best to say nothing. Your comments show disrespect to fellow Australians on here who are worried whether they will have a job or not after the 24th August. This simple fact doesn't seem to to bother you at all.
Last edited by TIMA9X; 22nd Jul 2011 at 04:16.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American Airlines CEO: Qantas not a "premium" airline
By John Walton Filed under: qantas, American Airlines, USA, United States, Gerard Arpey
By John Walton Filed under: qantas, American Airlines, USA, United States, Gerard Arpey
Frequent travellers to the USA will be interested to hear what American Airlines CEO Gerard Arpey has to say about his airline's plans to fly to Australia, remarkably critical thoughts about Qantas, and plans to replace the upgraded aircraft currently flying from Los Angeles LAX to New York's JFK.
Arpey, speaking to Executive Road Warrior, let slip several important pieces of information for Australian business travellers.
American thinking about flights to Australia
It's fairly clear to industry observers that Boeing has given American some cheap deals on 777s to make up for the delays to the 787 Dreamliner program.
Gerard Arpey, American Airlines CEO, is hedging his bets in doing business with Qantas.
Arpey dropped some serious hints that American has aspirations for the very lucrative trans-Pacific route in the interview, saying: "we did just apply for the Joint Business Agreement with Qantas and they started flying into and out of DFW, which is great for both of us. We may want to put our ducks in Australia with the Qantas guys, but [the 777-300ER] certainly could do that route."
(Australian Business Traveller first reported that American's new 777-300ER aircraft had the capacity for Los Angeles-Sydney flights in January.)
When talking about delivery dates for the 777-300ER, Arpey was very clear about the timeline: "All 8 are set for 2012 and 2013."
And there could be more to come: "We still have seven 777-200 deliveries for 2013 through 2016 that are on the books. Now, whether those might be changed to 300s, I don’t know," Arpey hedged.
American could even be planning a Qantas-busting new first class product on flights to Australia. When asked about whether the existing American Flagship Suite first class seat will be put on the 777-300ER, Arpey said: "We haven’t decided for sure how we’re going to configure that [aircraft]."
Since that Qantas has eschewed the 777-300ER and is using its 747-400ER planes -- which have diverted twice to refuel just this week -- instead, is American losing patience with Qantas' trans-Pacific problems?
Qantas: not on American's radar?
To make matters worse for Qantas, American doesn't see the Red Roo as a key part of "the best network for premium traffic", despite applying for a trans-Pacific joint venture with Qantas. Arpey specifically mentioned British Airways, Iberia, Japan Airlines and Cathay Pacific as part of that premium traffic network, but there was no sign of Qantas in his thinking.
Qantas has been hoping that extra connections through American's mega-hub in Dallas would be a better deal than flights to San Francisco.
The airlines' membership of the oneworld alliance doesn't necessarily signify a meeting of minds between the two airlines either. Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific and Qantas have famously not seen eye to eye in recent memory, with Qantas' decision to skip Cathay's Hong Kong base (the natural oneworld stopover location for Kangaroo Route flights to Europe) in favour of the existing Qantas-British Airways joint venture via Singapore.
Given that Qantas is currently sending its longest-range Boeing 747s on a route they don't really have the range for (given that they had to divert for fuel twice this week alone, has Qantas picked the wrong dance partner for the Airline Tango?
Is Jetstar making matters worse?
Sitting in US headquarters, Gerard Arpey has to be wondering what Qantas' CEO Alan Joyce is up to with Jetstar. From the perspective of the US airline industry, low-cost carriers affiliated with legacy airlines just don't work.
Delta Air Lines attempted a low-cost move with Song, moving 48 of its Boeing 757 planes into a subsidiary with a low-cost model to try to compete with new airlines like JetBlue. Song only lasted three years, from 2003 to 2006.
Similarly, United Airlines tried a low-cost subsidiary called Ted between 2004 and 2009. It failed, and its nearly 60 Airbus planes were folded back into the United fleet.
What lesson has the US airline industry learned from that? Low-cost subsidiaries don't work. Are Arpey and American Airlines management looking aghast at Qantas' plans to turn Jetstar into "Qantas Lite"?
New aircraft: what does it mean for Australian connections?
Australians will be affected by the aircraft purchase as older planes are replaced with newer ones. The first set to go are clearly the old McDonnell-Douglas MD-80 fleet, which are ancient in aircraft terms.
But Arpey also mentions retiring the Boeing 767-200 domestic fleet. Those are the planes that American flies between New York JFK and Los Angeles or San Francisco with better seats and service as part of its "Flagship" transcontinental service.
American clearly hasn't made its mind up on the planes that will replace the 767-200s.
"We’re not saying that we’re going to fly a bunch of 737s or Airbus A321s on the transcons. We’re just saying it opens some new possibilities for those aircraft," Arpey says, cagily, especially when probed on whether American's much-delayed Boeing 787 fleet will be deployed on those flights.
The big picture
All these points beg the question: where is the Qantas/American Airlines venture going? We're always interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. Share your views with other readers in the comment box below, or join the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #qfaa -- and don't forget to @mention us in your Tweets: @AusBT.
Arpey, speaking to Executive Road Warrior, let slip several important pieces of information for Australian business travellers.
American thinking about flights to Australia
It's fairly clear to industry observers that Boeing has given American some cheap deals on 777s to make up for the delays to the 787 Dreamliner program.
Gerard Arpey, American Airlines CEO, is hedging his bets in doing business with Qantas.
Arpey dropped some serious hints that American has aspirations for the very lucrative trans-Pacific route in the interview, saying: "we did just apply for the Joint Business Agreement with Qantas and they started flying into and out of DFW, which is great for both of us. We may want to put our ducks in Australia with the Qantas guys, but [the 777-300ER] certainly could do that route."
(Australian Business Traveller first reported that American's new 777-300ER aircraft had the capacity for Los Angeles-Sydney flights in January.)
When talking about delivery dates for the 777-300ER, Arpey was very clear about the timeline: "All 8 are set for 2012 and 2013."
And there could be more to come: "We still have seven 777-200 deliveries for 2013 through 2016 that are on the books. Now, whether those might be changed to 300s, I don’t know," Arpey hedged.
American could even be planning a Qantas-busting new first class product on flights to Australia. When asked about whether the existing American Flagship Suite first class seat will be put on the 777-300ER, Arpey said: "We haven’t decided for sure how we’re going to configure that [aircraft]."
Since that Qantas has eschewed the 777-300ER and is using its 747-400ER planes -- which have diverted twice to refuel just this week -- instead, is American losing patience with Qantas' trans-Pacific problems?
Qantas: not on American's radar?
To make matters worse for Qantas, American doesn't see the Red Roo as a key part of "the best network for premium traffic", despite applying for a trans-Pacific joint venture with Qantas. Arpey specifically mentioned British Airways, Iberia, Japan Airlines and Cathay Pacific as part of that premium traffic network, but there was no sign of Qantas in his thinking.
Qantas has been hoping that extra connections through American's mega-hub in Dallas would be a better deal than flights to San Francisco.
The airlines' membership of the oneworld alliance doesn't necessarily signify a meeting of minds between the two airlines either. Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific and Qantas have famously not seen eye to eye in recent memory, with Qantas' decision to skip Cathay's Hong Kong base (the natural oneworld stopover location for Kangaroo Route flights to Europe) in favour of the existing Qantas-British Airways joint venture via Singapore.
Given that Qantas is currently sending its longest-range Boeing 747s on a route they don't really have the range for (given that they had to divert for fuel twice this week alone, has Qantas picked the wrong dance partner for the Airline Tango?
Is Jetstar making matters worse?
Sitting in US headquarters, Gerard Arpey has to be wondering what Qantas' CEO Alan Joyce is up to with Jetstar. From the perspective of the US airline industry, low-cost carriers affiliated with legacy airlines just don't work.
Delta Air Lines attempted a low-cost move with Song, moving 48 of its Boeing 757 planes into a subsidiary with a low-cost model to try to compete with new airlines like JetBlue. Song only lasted three years, from 2003 to 2006.
Similarly, United Airlines tried a low-cost subsidiary called Ted between 2004 and 2009. It failed, and its nearly 60 Airbus planes were folded back into the United fleet.
What lesson has the US airline industry learned from that? Low-cost subsidiaries don't work. Are Arpey and American Airlines management looking aghast at Qantas' plans to turn Jetstar into "Qantas Lite"?
New aircraft: what does it mean for Australian connections?
Australians will be affected by the aircraft purchase as older planes are replaced with newer ones. The first set to go are clearly the old McDonnell-Douglas MD-80 fleet, which are ancient in aircraft terms.
But Arpey also mentions retiring the Boeing 767-200 domestic fleet. Those are the planes that American flies between New York JFK and Los Angeles or San Francisco with better seats and service as part of its "Flagship" transcontinental service.
American clearly hasn't made its mind up on the planes that will replace the 767-200s.
"We’re not saying that we’re going to fly a bunch of 737s or Airbus A321s on the transcons. We’re just saying it opens some new possibilities for those aircraft," Arpey says, cagily, especially when probed on whether American's much-delayed Boeing 787 fleet will be deployed on those flights.
The big picture
All these points beg the question: where is the Qantas/American Airlines venture going? We're always interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. Share your views with other readers in the comment box below, or join the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #qfaa -- and don't forget to @mention us in your Tweets: @AusBT.
why do you want to protect people at Q who are happy to sack hard working people at a stroke of a pen.
disrespect to fellow Australians
AJ and BB i think the cupboard door is finally coming open and guess what as the staff have been telling you its empty. Having said that the Qantas premium product especialy on the 380 is a cut above anything AA can offer.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ouch...... There's the sting in the tail, a glowing report from our Northern allies. What an embarrassment. Its time like this you wonder whether the managers are like that little runt puppy dog that gets kicked and abused but always comes back for more. Next move will be to show QF/JQ the door at One World, but thats ok because AJ and BB and LC know better than anyone else in the industry.
Woah guys, the title of the article is more than a little misleading. Arpey never actually said that Qantas was not a premium airline, he just didn't mention them while talking about the other oneworld carriers. That little omission has been taken by the author to the extreme methinks.
I could imagine AA wanting to expand its network to fly to Australia, and in the joint venture arrangement with QF both partners win. For AA, they have an advantage in that they can pick up US gov't traffic between Australia and the US due to their weird rules, while QF will simply add their code to an AA operated service and also potentially get upside on their domestic network.
I could imagine AA wanting to expand its network to fly to Australia, and in the joint venture arrangement with QF both partners win. For AA, they have an advantage in that they can pick up US gov't traffic between Australia and the US due to their weird rules, while QF will simply add their code to an AA operated service and also potentially get upside on their domestic network.
I think you will find that US govt employees can travel on Qantas as it is a code share with an AA flight number, however i stand to be corrected.
Far better on SWA for the same or less $$.Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the first time in my posting history, I have to agree with Ken. While the criticisms of the current QF management are spot on, I have flown on AA, and they have a LONG way to go in my book. reminds me of "pot calling kettle....."
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why has the AA CEO's 'alleged statement' come as such a supposed shock ? It is completely true, QF became a crappy two-bit service a few years back. They offer nothing special and certainly nothing above or beyond what their crappy counterparts in the USA offer, that's for sure.
QF, AA, doesn't matter, neither put so much as a dent into what Singapore Airlines offers. Actually AJ really suits the role he has at QF - he is experienced at running half-arsed ****e service airlines, and that certainly is what QF has become. It was embarressing last month, I got better service in Asia on Garuda domestic than I received from QF domestic in AUS. That tells you something.
QF, AA, doesn't matter, neither put so much as a dent into what Singapore Airlines offers. Actually AJ really suits the role he has at QF - he is experienced at running half-arsed ****e service airlines, and that certainly is what QF has become. It was embarressing last month, I got better service in Asia on Garuda domestic than I received from QF domestic in AUS. That tells you something.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Pan Am or TWA had a great product, way back when
although it turned out Aprey didn't say it, a spokesperson did. Some one got their wires crossed, can happen with PR departments and/or journalists sometimes.
porch monkey Ken B, hindsight is a wonderful thing, , I agree with you after I read my post again, (written with a hot head) I do recall flying AA last year JFK/LHR and saying to myself these guys are worse than the last time. It's been a long week for me. Please accept my apologies.
.
Last edited by TIMA9X; 22nd Jul 2011 at 13:32.
AA have operated to Aust on 2 previous occasions. In the 70's with a B707 and in the late 80's/early 90's with the DC10. Both services stopped in HNL.
With the upcoming Trans Pacific route changes by VA and DL I guess AA are watching the market closely, especially if the UA B744 services are replaced by B777-200LR's.
With the upcoming Trans Pacific route changes by VA and DL I guess AA are watching the market closely, especially if the UA B744 services are replaced by B777-200LR's.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American carriers may have a service that is crappier (is there such a word?) than Qantas. But that does not mean that AA is wrong with their comments. In fact, they are likely quite correct, and to suggest that just because his service is crappier than ours, that he therefore must shut up is typically arrogant of QF management.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it until the cows come home. Joyce and Buchanan are pathetic amateurs and need to go.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it until the cows come home. Joyce and Buchanan are pathetic amateurs and need to go.
“From the perspective of the US airline industry, low-cost carriers affiliated with legacy airlines just don't work.”
This may be true but does not mean that Jetstar will go the same way as its American cousins.
Jetstar is a separate business from QF. Overheads and labor costs are totally different to QF. Song, Ted, Metrojet and others in the US suffered as a result of operating within the parent business. None were stand-alone airlines that could negotiate truly competitive labor rates like Jetstar has. And of course, all 3 of the above examples were operated by airlines that employed chapter 11 rulings to achieve the drastically reduced labor costs they were seeking, thus obviating the need for the sibling carrier anyway.
“Nothing Premium over there.”
Make a bet. Have you ever flown Alaska or Virgin America? Much better than QF domestic.
This may be true but does not mean that Jetstar will go the same way as its American cousins.
Jetstar is a separate business from QF. Overheads and labor costs are totally different to QF. Song, Ted, Metrojet and others in the US suffered as a result of operating within the parent business. None were stand-alone airlines that could negotiate truly competitive labor rates like Jetstar has. And of course, all 3 of the above examples were operated by airlines that employed chapter 11 rulings to achieve the drastically reduced labor costs they were seeking, thus obviating the need for the sibling carrier anyway.
“Nothing Premium over there.”
Make a bet. Have you ever flown Alaska or Virgin America? Much better than QF domestic.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oicur,
If you truely believe Jetstar is an operation that is not operating within the Q group, standing on their own two legs, turning a profit on its own, I would be of the opinion that, on this matter, you do not know one brown matter from the other.
Labour costs, with respect to pilots wages are a very very small part of the big picture.
The reduced labour costs present in Jetstar are due, in my opinion, to immature, short sighted and selfish individuals thinking short term and only of themselves, taking a ****ty package, because they've always wanted to fly a big shiney jet, damn everyone else, including the industry awards so hardly earned.
Whilst I can understand what AIPA is trying to do with the "Qantas pilots flying Qantas flights, or equal pay", "these" other pilots might find themselves on the same level of pay as the rest of us, without ever having to grow stones and stand up for themselves, makes me feel ill just thinking about the benefits these people could have from our hard work.
If you truely believe Jetstar is an operation that is not operating within the Q group, standing on their own two legs, turning a profit on its own, I would be of the opinion that, on this matter, you do not know one brown matter from the other.
Labour costs, with respect to pilots wages are a very very small part of the big picture.
The reduced labour costs present in Jetstar are due, in my opinion, to immature, short sighted and selfish individuals thinking short term and only of themselves, taking a ****ty package, because they've always wanted to fly a big shiney jet, damn everyone else, including the industry awards so hardly earned.
Whilst I can understand what AIPA is trying to do with the "Qantas pilots flying Qantas flights, or equal pay", "these" other pilots might find themselves on the same level of pay as the rest of us, without ever having to grow stones and stand up for themselves, makes me feel ill just thinking about the benefits these people could have from our hard work.