Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

MERGED: Qantas grounded effective immediately.

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

MERGED: Qantas grounded effective immediately.

Old 6th Nov 2011, 10:47
  #1181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: FL290
Posts: 743
(f) prohibit Qantas from conducting scheduled international air transport passenger services under a name other than:

(i) its company name; or

(ii) a registered business name that includes the expression "Qantas"
Still dont understand how they can use the jetstar name. Qantas doesnt seem defined as being the parent company or the airline
1a sound asleep is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2011, 11:09
  #1182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Bubble
Posts: 640
Nothing in the act stipulates that Qantas must be X size and subsidiaries can only be Y size, or a limit of capital allocated to subsidiaries etc.

The act is basically worthless in the sense that they could if they want, totally stop investing in the Qantas brand, a bit like cancelling the A380s and not purchasing any new narrowbody aircraft in the recent bout of orderings and not actually, firmly allocating any of the 787s to anyone except 'jetstar is getting the first 15'.

So in that sense, they are within the bounds. Meanwhile the 767s still trundle around, the 734s are still stop gapping lack of investment in new narrowbody aircraft and the 330s (bar the latest 4 domestic ones) are starting to look a bit tired. Not to forget to mention the 90000 hour 747s syd-per-syd daily.

Now is that 747 syd-per-syd with international pilots, international f/a's, international fleet allocation, being paid for by domestic or the international cash bleeding segment? The mind boggles.
600ft-lb is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2011, 18:22
  #1183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 56
Posts: 45
clotted:

2. Joyce decided to invoke his only option, of PIA involving a lockout.
You are wrong. There was another choice available. AJ could have fronted FWA and threatened lockout on given day (i.e. we WILL be commencing lockout on Oct.....) and this would have then required FWA to accomplish same, except without the grounding of the entire fleet, saving Q 100M or so, and yet to be determined stupid amounts of $ in lost customers. AJ knew this. Why then the theatrics clott...?

aseanaero:

Is it really cheaper to maintain an aircraft in Asia ? Ok the labor cost is $25 an hour but the customs delays, back handers (how are they going to handle that ?) are going to be issues and the skill level ISN'T to Qantas standards with very few exceptions. I've had customers wait 6 months to get a D check completed on a B737 here in Indonesia !
Read a real good article the other day, about China becoming less and less competitive globally as time goes on. Wages on the increase, manufacturing costs on the increase...Western companies that once needed to have bases there due to cheaper costs/labour are now returning home to do it in-house. Why? Simple math, at 10 odd % inflation compared to the 3 odd % at home, they become expensive. Advantage lost. As a self proclaimed math genius one would think AJ would understand this. So offshoring engineering etc by the little man using the $ advantage as the excuse will soon, if not already, disappear.

My two cents worth? China is not the saviour of all Western evils (for many reasons, see another thread, Globalisation...) They are a bubble, one that AJ and his bunch of inbred clowns just don't see. As we all know, the big Q are always the last to the party. What was that game we all used to play, when we were silly and small like AJ, and about the same age...? Oh yeah, thats it! Pass the Parcel! 10 in the room, 9 chairs...AJ will soon be flying a fleet of shiny new A320 toys into China when the music has already stopped...

AJ, LC et al, your stupid Asian experiments will not work. Certainly none have worked to date, so why do you keep throwing good money after bad?
Dixons Millions is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2011, 19:00
  #1184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 60
Posts: 781
Other examples of 'Asian efficiency' , a large wide body maintenance facility is now charging $15,000 to move a CFM56 from the engine shop to the store , about 5 minutes by forklift

"You want your aircraft signed off quickly (prioritised) after maintenance Mister ?" ... translated : please leave your envelope on the table or it will take us another few weeks to sort it out

Another personal experience was a 2 week HF installation which spun out to 2 months !

2 engine stands being stuck in customs for 4 months as they were second hand and needed a special clearance for import from the dept of trade , even though the engine shop was in a bonded area. They were in country for 1 week for loading and re-export and a $45,000 bill for storage.

I look after a few turboprop freighters here in Indo and we flew the aircraft to Australia for a scheduled engine change to avoid having an engine stuck in customs ...

On paper it may look good cost wise but then you have to factor in how much 'unscheduled delays' from customs , the maintenance facility staff and other people who can and will make life difficult. These are the realities of most low cost Asian countries.

How much does a grounded B747 cost per day ?
aseanaero is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2011, 20:20
  #1185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 410
Clotted,

The general public and Government are not shitty about QF/Joyce locking out the LH Pilots / Engineers / Baggage staff, that was OK to lock out.

But he grounded the airline, what of the domestic pilots ?, they were not using PIA, what about all the other staff ?.

This action was as Captain Jackson/Woodward stated, Joyce holding a knife to Australia's throat.

I am pretty sure the amendment to the QSA is going to be very unpleasant for Joyce, the fact that he antagonised the Government by grounding the fleet will/has made things very much worse for him.

The proposed amendment to the QSA was a little inert, but the new and improved amendment will not be.

So, whilst the AIPA, ALEA, and TWU might not like what FWA will "arbitrate", an appropriate amendment to the QSA will be far more reaching than a couple of EBA's with some watery clauses, so it can be a massive win via proxy ( Senator Nick and the QSA amendment ).

Well played Unions !!!!!!!!!.

Last edited by Shed Dog Tosser; 6th Nov 2011 at 20:46.
Shed Dog Tosser is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2011, 22:42
  #1186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 1,543
I personally have flown a 330 SIN-MNL, 48hrs on the ground, -SYD all empty ferry. Assuming our engineers are on over $1000 per hour and the Philipinos are free it is still a way to bleed money!!
Tankengine is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2011, 23:03
  #1187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,136
Qantas doesnt seem defined as being the parent company or the airline
The Qantas Sale Act 1992 defines "Qantas" as:


Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists from time to time (even if its name is later changed).

My view is that the "intent and spirit" of the Act prohibits similar actions on the part of its subsidiaries, however, the "detail" of the current Act appears not to.... or at least it's debatable.

Therefore ... we have the Senators' proposed amendment ...

So, it's really now up to the Government ... to decide if it wants to allow Qantas the latitude it demands, with all the associated National issues that creates ... or to reign it in, also with many associated Corporate issues.

My view is that the "spirit" of the Act was known when it was privatised and that the management, after conducting their due diligence, should have created their business plan, based on the implications of the Act.

My further view is that, if the current management can't operate the Company successfully, within the confines of the spirit of the Act, then they should step aside for an alternative Team.

Last edited by peuce; 6th Nov 2011 at 23:13.
peuce is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 01:07
  #1188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 13
Posts: 1,057
My further view is that, if the current management can't operate the Company successfully, within the confines of the spirit of the Act, then they should step aside for an alternative Team.
Great words mate, if the management spent half as much time getting on with the job "competing with the opposition" rather than blaming everyone else by employing people like Freehills as consultants to change the playing field alienating the staff and its customers. These consultants have bogged down any positive constructive initiatives to counter the competition from the other international carriers. Other words, these consultants have hijacked the day to day running of the business by diverting the attention away from "positive action" to "what if we change this piece of legislation or IR rules etc" a lawyers picnic day aboard the gravy train...

Meanwhile the operational staff end up running the airline with no positive clear direction set by the management, only mixed messages always in the negative like,
1. we are moving somewhere to Asia with 120 single aisle NEO's that Airbus wouldn't have built without the support of Qantas!

2. Not investing any more in the International arm of Q

3. Ground the airline (the day after the AGM) not telling anyone, now offering free flights to say sorry, then in a few weeks AJ will announce a profit warning blaming everyone else but not recognising that in fact his decision to a lockout, the board supporting it all along, and their combined handling of all the issues this year leading up to the pending profit warning announcement, in real terms 80% caused by the management themselves.

I believe the long haul experiment with J* is starting to wear thin with the punters.... tried it once now want to go back to a full service experience which they prefer. The punters are discovering the "low cost" model for Australia long haul ain't that much cheaper than what the full service airlines offer. (EK 30 kilos baggage allowance.) Who wants to squabble with the restrictive low cost check in rules when you are traveling to London?

from another thread.


Revenue seat factor Qantas International was higher than Jetstar International. Jetstar actually went backwards 4.2% from same time last year.
I doubt in the long term Jetstar will ever replace the Q long haul traditional model. People will quietly vote with their feet leaving the Q group all together for the opposition. I wonder who management will blame when this trend becomes more obvious? The consultants?

.
TIMA9X is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 01:14
  #1189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 1,006
Shed Do (and others). I think I speak for all at Qantas who would say that **IF** there are efficiencies we can make to secure the future of the airline then we would be happy to accommodate Qantas.

We want survival of the airline. What we are upset about is the blatant gutting of the place from management.

So, whilst FWA arbitrator may be painful, it is way better than anything Qantas would have otherwise forced.

I am by nature a very nervous person in front of courtrooms, but in this instance I believe Alan Joyce my have helped us immeasurably. One thing is certain. It could not possibly be any worse than it would be if Qantas were in charge. Grounded for wearing red ties and making a 10 second PA is an example of bad, then everything else can only be good

Surely??

Although we could have just heard the doors close on the cattle trucks on our journey to Poland in 1941 i suppose
V-Jet is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 02:24
  #1190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Who in this forum remembers the words uttered by AJ on August 16 about "for every 100 passengers fying out of Australia, only 18 choose to fly QANTAS"? Come on. Hands up! I can see you out there.

As this figure has never sat right with me, and constantly seeing the loads that leave Sydney on a QANTAS flight destined beyond our shores, the planes looked more than 18% full to me. Virtually standing room only (that's another airline's proposition).

Anyhow, I have been doing a little research of my own and I came across these figures at Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and Transport.

The figures I'm putting up here are as recent as August 2011. If you read them as they are, Mr Joyce is correct.

Out of 1,159,372 outbound passengers, QANTAS carried only 209,339 of those passengers. This equates to 18%. So what you say. That's what he told the Australian public on that day, and that is accepted. That's why we have to restructure the International arm, send jobs offshore and employ foreigners at a much cheaper rate.

But wait! There's more!!

These figures include EVERY airline that flys out of Australia to destinations that QANTAS does not fly to, and does not compete against. A QANTAS plane does not fly to Malaysia. It is therefore not in direct competition with Malaysian. A QANTAS plane does not fly to Canada, therefore it is not in direct competition with Air Canada, and so on. As you remove the airlines QANTAS is not in competition with, by removing the destinations they don't fly to, the percentage of passengers carried out of Australia on a QANTAS plane increases dramatically.

The ammended figures I'm giving here are for August 2011 only.

Airlines that QANTAS is in direct competition with carried 662,520 passengers. Of that 662,250, JQ carried 100,374. I'll use the 662,520 figure just to show the "creative" number crunching of AJ. This number jumps to 31.597385739%. I'll just round that DOWN to 31%

Going to the US run alone, the figures are:

QANTAS 48,653
United 18,191
Delta 7,050
Hawaiian 5,195

I can see AJ's 18% of capacity there.

Singapore outbound:

Singapore Airlines 96,249
QANTAS 37,594
JQ 12,504
Emirates 5,331
Tiger 3,379
British 1,969
Etihad 609

Out of a total of 157,635 passengers carried to Singapore, QANTAS carried 23.8% and I'll round that DOWN to 23%. Still better than the 18% AJ mentioned.

One more destination. Hong Kong:

Cathay 61,459
QANTAS 23,533
Virgin Atlantic 3,729

A total of 88,721 passenger to Hong Kong, that's the best part of 26% of passengers carried. Not 18%.

These are but just a few of the flights over one month.

If you want to check these figures for yourself, here's the link:

International Airline Activity - Monthly Publications

They are month by month.

There needs to be an uncovering of the truth as to how this man, AJ, has deceived the Australian public, the business sector and its investors, and the Australian government as to the dire need of QANTAS to outsource and offshore the company and grounding of an airline under false pretences for an illegitimate cause for the benefit of but a few at the expense of many.

Last edited by QF94; 8th Nov 2011 at 11:34.
QF94 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 02:42
  #1191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
QF94 - using statistics of convenience is hardly a capital crime and is par for course these days (unfortunately). Everywhere you look someone is using a stat that isn't telling a 'lie', but could easily be contested, as you have done below.

You take the stat that resonates with your message and voila, you start to sound credible.
ACT Crusader is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 03:03
  #1192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 2,412
QF94. And on those statistics QF has a revenue load factor of, or in excess of 80%?

How can Qantas expect to build it's market share if it does not offer the capacity?

There have been unflattering references in this thread to the individual Qantas Directors. Consider this:
  • Joyce told the Senate Estimates Committee he alone made the decision to ground Qantas.
  • Corporate governance suggests that if it was not a Board decision, the Board at least ratified Joyce's decision.
  • Board confidentiality suggests will never know if that Board decision or ratification was unanimous. I suspect it was not.
Torres is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 03:21
  #1193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Torres,

Not sure it is that simple.

Corps Law requires minutes to be kept of all proceedings and resolutions of directors meetings. Presumably if it was unanimous there was a resolution.

That puts them in the frame I would have thought atleast insofar as their state of mind at that time and what information they were provided with.

Then again they have good lawyers in the process so who knows.
ohallen is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 03:22
  #1194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
QF94:

It is not fair to just use comparisons with cities that QF flies to. QF's international network is so small and the airline cannot take foreigners and Australians alike to and from most destinations either on a direct flight with one flight number.

QF's Europe network includes only LHR and FRA

Asia is basically BKK, MNL, CGK, SIN, NRT, PVG and HKG.

There are many more Australians who want to go to places other than LHR and FRA, and many other foreigners who originate in cities other than LHR and FRA in Europe.

The reason only 18% of intl pax into and out of Australia use QF is because QF's intl network is just too small to be of relevance to most passengers - Australians and foreigners alike.
DrPepz is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 03:40
  #1195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
aseanaero:


On paper it may look good cost wise but then you have to factor in how much 'unscheduled delays' from customs , the maintenance facility staff and other people who can and will make life difficult. These are the realities of most low cost Asian countries.
Yeah I don't quite work in aircraft maintenance but for our work in China, we outsourced work for project management, and did not factor in the costs for "gifts" and "relationship management". Which can easily double the cost of your work. If you don't gift the airport fire safety officer something, he won't approve your drawings. If you don't gift customs something, they would never give you an airside pass. Small little things like that which can ruin your entire project.

This is the reality in Asia excluding SIN and HKG. Even the Singaporeans and Hong Kongers themselves get burnt all over Asia. (Having worked for Singaporean corporations myself, my bosses used to be so utterly and truly shocked when they realised that Vietnam and China were not as straightforward as Singapore.
DrPepz is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 03:47
  #1196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
QANTAS's network is small, and many people want to fly to destinations QANTAS doesn't fly to or orginate from. Name one airline that flies to every destination on the planet. That's why codeshare exists. All airlines use it to be able to get passengers to their destinations. Some destinations can't be justified to fly to. Some sectors would need a Cessna 172 to service them because of the passenger numbers. It makes sense to use a partner airline to carry your passengers.

It's obvious the routes QANTAS flies do make money and lots if it. That's why they have the routes they have. Some are more profitable than others, but they are all making money and not the -$216 Million as claimed.
QF94 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 05:00
  #1197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
DrPepz,

QF94:

It is not fair to just use comparisons with cities that QF flies to. QF's international network is so small and the airline cannot take foreigners and Australians alike to and from most destinations either on a direct flight with one flight number.

QF's Europe network includes only LHR and FRA

Asia is basically BKK, MNL, CGK, SIN, NRT, PVG and HKG.

There are many more Australians who want to go to places other than LHR and FRA, and many other foreigners who originate in cities other than LHR and FRA in Europe.

The reason only 18% of intl pax into and out of Australia use QF is because QF's intl network is just too small to be of relevance to most passengers - Australians and foreigners alike.
I fail to understand how it is not fair to use comparisons with cities that QANTAS flies to. That would be like using a hypothetical scenario on a sector to Moscow from Australia, that Aeroflot has 100% of the market share and QANTAS has 0%. Using AJ's logic, people prefer to fly Aeroflot because QANTAS can't compete on price and they provide a better service. When in reality, QANTAS doesn't fly to Moscow, because it isn't viable, so they would code share on that sector.

Generally speaking, most people going to Europe want to go to LHR, then fan out from there. That's where most airilines fly to (BA, EK, Etihad). Most people going to the US want to go to LA and fan out from there. The main Asian cities that most airlines go to are SIN, BKK, HKG.

QANTAS used to fly to Rome, Paris, Athens, Manchester and depending on how far back you want to go, they even used to stop in the Middle East. But as is constantly mentioned in the press and on this forum, things change. As they changed, QANTAS pulled out of those destinations and code shared with carriers that fly there, freeing up aircraft to pursue a greater share on more profitable routes. i.e. USA, South Africa, South America, etc.

As we all know, Australia is a destination port. Not a hub. Not bad for a carrier that carried 197,547 passengers out of Australia and 209,339 passengers in, for the month of August. Also, Australia has a very small population in comparison to the rest of the world.

The reality is QANTAS carries 18% of all traffic out of Australia, and 31% of traffic to destinations it flies to in direct competition with other airlines.

Last edited by QF94; 8th Nov 2011 at 11:41.
QF94 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 09:59
  #1198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 110
Wow, ABC Q&A is fiery on the Qantas subject tonight! Well worth watching if you're near the TV.
SimonBl is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 10:42
  #1199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 59
Posts: 1,437
Has anybody been able to establish whether there are any links between Freehills and the River Dancer, Darth or Boston Bruce in any way, whether it be family, friends, mates, past or serving business partners?
Is any QF board member or any other executive manager or family associate, friend or relative linked in anyway to Freehills, past or present?
I am just curious, after all, there are rumors that some very senior Australian aviation executives bolster their paypackets handsomely by way if external consultant services of which they are shrewdly linked, apparently.
gobbledock is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2011, 11:41
  #1200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,325
I'm certain I read on one of these Topics about Qantas that one of the current Directors of Qantas is also a Partner or Director at Freehills? I can't quite remember which one I saw it in...perhaps one of the ones going on about "Plays" and "Actors involved"

*EDIT*

Gary Hounsells~Qantas non executive director,Sits on Freehills Board
Geoffrey Guidice~President of Fair work Australia,Partner at Freehills and involved in the 1989 Pilots dispute

thats the one I was thinking of!!
Ixixly is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.