5th September QF Announcement
Nunc est bibendum
The QF 767 fleet is 'slow flying' at the moment (sharing the hours around all airframes) and last I heard was about 8 1/2 hours per airframe. 9 hours isn't enough. 11 would be satisfactory. Closer to 12 would be the norm for an efficient user. Given the schedules and time zones, I think you'd struggle to get four crossings out of a 737 per day. If you did you'd still only touch on about 12 hours. If you not get 3 crossings then hous are 9-10 and you're struggling.
Seems EK is trying for similar deal with American airlines.
Interesting times.
The don
Interesting times.
The don
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 66
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates is a fully commercial, unsubsidised business which is independently managed and audited.
But I thought they go their fuel for nothing?
But where they do have advantages are they don't have the same layers of Government red tape & taxes that QF has. Plus they don't have the "burden" of the Australian industrial laws.
Although EK work their people pretty hard, and the ones I know might bitch about work conditions, they are in no hurry to give up the pay and perks.
What EK do have over QF is a brilliant leader in Tim Clark (and likewise Gary Chapman at Dnata)
Last edited by hiwaytohell; 13th Sep 2012 at 21:01.
Rmcdonell (in regard to sharing IT Systems, Facilities, services, etc. ):
This is where the fun starts...........
What will now happen is that each little empire in EK and QF will vigourously defend its turf in endless wars until one or another side is defeated and absorbed, or management loses its taste for misery and consultants.
The idea that it is "logical" to do this type of forced marriage relies on the assumption that there are economies of scale that can be captured without loss of service quality to each partner. Both sides will strive mightily to challenge this idea. When management gets sick of the bickering they will call in the consultants who won't make much headway either.
Let me give you my experience: When the Melbourne underground rail loop was completed, the tunnel borer lease had six months to run and the machine was somewhere near under Parliament house.
Some bright bastard (with a sense of the comical) suggested it would be a good idea to drive a tunnel under Victoria street below the basements of the Eye and Ear and St Vincents hospitals "So that they could share services and save money".
When the tunnel was finished the fun started - war between the head Nun at St. Vincents and the CEO of the eye and ear hospital over what could be shared and who would give up what.....
Pharmacy, central sterile dressing supply departments (CSSD) both defended the turfs sufficiently and it was agreed that these couldn't be shared. The next target was the kitchens.......
Little Sunfish, the most junior corporate strategy consultant at Coopers and Lybrand was called in to adjudicate because at this stage the respective managers weren't on speaking terms. I learned from the eye and ear folk that their customers were so blind they needed special plates and cups which made sharing impossible. I learnt from the St Vincents folks that they were required to make dying request meals at all hours of the day and night as well as feeding half the homeless in Carlton. You can guess the rest.
This went on for months at great cost in Sunfish billable hours.
The tunnel under Victoria street still exists - Two floors of it. I last heard that both hospitals were using it to store surplus furniture.
Qantas and Emirates will attempt a similar marriage. It should be quite hilarious to be a fly on the wall, but not so much if you are a contestant.
They all seem like logical items to me, why would they double up on any of these items when they can share and get it cheaper?
What will now happen is that each little empire in EK and QF will vigourously defend its turf in endless wars until one or another side is defeated and absorbed, or management loses its taste for misery and consultants.
The idea that it is "logical" to do this type of forced marriage relies on the assumption that there are economies of scale that can be captured without loss of service quality to each partner. Both sides will strive mightily to challenge this idea. When management gets sick of the bickering they will call in the consultants who won't make much headway either.
Let me give you my experience: When the Melbourne underground rail loop was completed, the tunnel borer lease had six months to run and the machine was somewhere near under Parliament house.
Some bright bastard (with a sense of the comical) suggested it would be a good idea to drive a tunnel under Victoria street below the basements of the Eye and Ear and St Vincents hospitals "So that they could share services and save money".
When the tunnel was finished the fun started - war between the head Nun at St. Vincents and the CEO of the eye and ear hospital over what could be shared and who would give up what.....
Pharmacy, central sterile dressing supply departments (CSSD) both defended the turfs sufficiently and it was agreed that these couldn't be shared. The next target was the kitchens.......
Little Sunfish, the most junior corporate strategy consultant at Coopers and Lybrand was called in to adjudicate because at this stage the respective managers weren't on speaking terms. I learned from the eye and ear folk that their customers were so blind they needed special plates and cups which made sharing impossible. I learnt from the St Vincents folks that they were required to make dying request meals at all hours of the day and night as well as feeding half the homeless in Carlton. You can guess the rest.
This went on for months at great cost in Sunfish billable hours.
The tunnel under Victoria street still exists - Two floors of it. I last heard that both hospitals were using it to store surplus furniture.
Qantas and Emirates will attempt a similar marriage. It should be quite hilarious to be a fly on the wall, but not so much if you are a contestant.
Last edited by Sunfish; 13th Sep 2012 at 21:43.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that would be "interesting"
"But where they do have advantages are they don't have the same layers of Government red tape & taxes that QF has. Plus they don't have the "burden" of the Australian industrial laws."
So to follow their model Joyce would also have the skulls job!
So to follow their model Joyce would also have the skulls job!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sunfish
This is where the fun starts...........
What will now happen is that each little empire in EK and QF will vigourously defend its turf in endless wars until one or another side is defeated and absorbed, or management loses its taste for misery and consultants.
What will now happen is that each little empire in EK and QF will vigourously defend its turf in endless wars until one or another side is defeated and absorbed, or management loses its taste for misery and consultants.
Leave them to it, set up the deadline meeting and if they haven't done it then you commence outsourcing BOTH sides. Give them the heads up that you will be releasing tenders in 2,3 or however many months and will consult with them on the final documentation.
Of course, if they manage to pull off the integration in the meantime then you won't need to outsource, choice is then theirs.
With your hospital example the simple answer to both of those arguments is to draw up a requirement spec, let them know that both sides are more than capable of meeting the needs of the other and you want to know how it will be done collaboratively with a full plan in 60 days.
On day 60 they present their plan, if they bring back a load of crap then you go to the market and effectively replace the management, the odds are that the Spotless' of the world will happily take the workers over, clearly the issue lies with management.
Of course, it's not quite that simple but you get the gist of it.
Given the schedules and time zones, I think you'd struggle to get four crossings out of a 737 per day.
i.e AKL-MEL-AKL-BNE-AKL
Personally I believe that the Trans-Tasman is a loss leader, like that $2 bottle of milk at the supermarket.....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the 767 when it did Tasmans was a loss leader....maybe on the passenger fare side of things, but it was chockers full of freight.... Now they have 2 separate companies plus associated overheads doing the Same job(jetconect and EFA)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone read this? QF denied it, but seeing how they seemed to desperately jump at everything (which at the moment was the *right deal for us*) I wouldn't be surprised. But the audacity of trying to break up current partners, and circumventing SIA and going to its parent?
=============
Qantas tried to split Virgin alliance - AviationPros.com
Qantas attempted to break up the alliance between Singapore Airlines and Virgin Australia and turned to Emirates when the approach was rebuffed by the Singaporeans.
The Australian Financial Review has learnt that Qantas executives approached senior figures at Temasek, the state-owned investment vehicle of Singapore and majority shareholder of Singapore Airlines, in an ambitious move to press the advantages of a tie up with Qantas.
The approach was made to Temasek, which owns 56 per cent of Singapore Airlines as part of a $S200 billion portfolio, rather than the Asian carrier because of the frosty relationship between management at the two airlines, sources say.
Qantas pulled out of discussions with Temasek when it became clear the management of Singapore Airlines was not interested in an alliance. It decided to pursue the deal with Emirates, leaving the Singapore option off the table for now, according to sources.
Temsaek is believed to still be open to a tie up between Qantas and the airline it effectively controls. The deal would have encompassed the two premium airlines and their low-cost subsidiaries, JetStar, Tiger Airways and Scoot. As Qantas tries to reverse losses at its international division that ballooned to $450 million last year, Mr Joyce and his management team have been reaching out to potential partners around the world.
Another tie up of similar scope to the Emirates alliance in Asia is considered vital to the future of the mainline Qantas brand within the region - a far more important market than any other in the Qantas network.
Over the past year Qantas has held discussions ranging from preliminary soundings to late-stage negotiations with almost 10 airlines, including Emirates, Singapore, Malaysia Airlines, China Eastern and Latam Airlines in Chile. A Temasek spokeswoman declined to comment. Qantas spokeswoman Sophia Connelly said: "There is always speculation about Qantas. We are regularly in discussions with various airlines, both for Qantas and Jetstar, and we don't comment on those discussions."
Virgin took the airline industry by surprise when it announced a long-term strategic alliance with Singapore, the second largest carrier flying out of Australia after Qantas, a deal which vastly enhanced Virgin's appeal to the corporate market it is targeting within Australia.
Should Singapore entertain a deeper alliance or even a more basic code share arrangement with Qantas, it would be considered a tough deal to secure regulatory approval, considering the respective market shares of the two airlines on the route.
Australian Competition and Consumer chairman Rod Sims said on Thursday yesterday that he would closely examine issues concerning the reduction of capacity or price increases stemming from airline alliances.
"We are aware that Emirates prices generally are lower than Qantas prices. Naturally, we'll look at the price issue closely," Mr Sims said.
Qantas has not abandoned its plan to establish a premium subsidiary airline of its own in Singapore, but with that project on the backburner until economic conditions and the company's financial position improves, a partnership was viewed as the most viable avenue to grow its network in the short term.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, who has been in Singapore this week for an investor roadshow, said the Emirates tie up went some way to solving Qantas' problems in Asia because it allowed flights to be retimed to better suit travellers in the region, rather than having a schedule based on connecting flights to Europe.
People close to the situation have suggested the Emirates deal should give Mr Joyce greater confidence to be aggressive in Asia with more point-to-point services to Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing and Shanghai.
=============
Qantas tried to split Virgin alliance - AviationPros.com
Qantas attempted to break up the alliance between Singapore Airlines and Virgin Australia and turned to Emirates when the approach was rebuffed by the Singaporeans.
The Australian Financial Review has learnt that Qantas executives approached senior figures at Temasek, the state-owned investment vehicle of Singapore and majority shareholder of Singapore Airlines, in an ambitious move to press the advantages of a tie up with Qantas.
The approach was made to Temasek, which owns 56 per cent of Singapore Airlines as part of a $S200 billion portfolio, rather than the Asian carrier because of the frosty relationship between management at the two airlines, sources say.
Qantas pulled out of discussions with Temasek when it became clear the management of Singapore Airlines was not interested in an alliance. It decided to pursue the deal with Emirates, leaving the Singapore option off the table for now, according to sources.
Temsaek is believed to still be open to a tie up between Qantas and the airline it effectively controls. The deal would have encompassed the two premium airlines and their low-cost subsidiaries, JetStar, Tiger Airways and Scoot. As Qantas tries to reverse losses at its international division that ballooned to $450 million last year, Mr Joyce and his management team have been reaching out to potential partners around the world.
Another tie up of similar scope to the Emirates alliance in Asia is considered vital to the future of the mainline Qantas brand within the region - a far more important market than any other in the Qantas network.
Over the past year Qantas has held discussions ranging from preliminary soundings to late-stage negotiations with almost 10 airlines, including Emirates, Singapore, Malaysia Airlines, China Eastern and Latam Airlines in Chile. A Temasek spokeswoman declined to comment. Qantas spokeswoman Sophia Connelly said: "There is always speculation about Qantas. We are regularly in discussions with various airlines, both for Qantas and Jetstar, and we don't comment on those discussions."
Virgin took the airline industry by surprise when it announced a long-term strategic alliance with Singapore, the second largest carrier flying out of Australia after Qantas, a deal which vastly enhanced Virgin's appeal to the corporate market it is targeting within Australia.
Should Singapore entertain a deeper alliance or even a more basic code share arrangement with Qantas, it would be considered a tough deal to secure regulatory approval, considering the respective market shares of the two airlines on the route.
Australian Competition and Consumer chairman Rod Sims said on Thursday yesterday that he would closely examine issues concerning the reduction of capacity or price increases stemming from airline alliances.
"We are aware that Emirates prices generally are lower than Qantas prices. Naturally, we'll look at the price issue closely," Mr Sims said.
Qantas has not abandoned its plan to establish a premium subsidiary airline of its own in Singapore, but with that project on the backburner until economic conditions and the company's financial position improves, a partnership was viewed as the most viable avenue to grow its network in the short term.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce, who has been in Singapore this week for an investor roadshow, said the Emirates tie up went some way to solving Qantas' problems in Asia because it allowed flights to be retimed to better suit travellers in the region, rather than having a schedule based on connecting flights to Europe.
People close to the situation have suggested the Emirates deal should give Mr Joyce greater confidence to be aggressive in Asia with more point-to-point services to Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing and Shanghai.
I wonder if the 767 when it did Tasmans was a loss leader....maybe on the passenger fare side of things, but it was chockers full of freight..
Last edited by framer; 14th Sep 2012 at 08:27.
An article I stumbled across on the Business Spectator website, I have bolded the bit that I found most interesting with regard to QF and it's "management".
As the chairman of BHP Billiton, Jac Nasser knew exactly what he was walking into this week when he suggested the very rich should be left alone. Nasser more than most is in a position to gauge a global move to increases taxes on the world’s wealthiest.
In the US President Obama has resurrected the notion of ‘class war’ with a focus on the lack of tax paid by his Republican opponent Mitt Romney. Romney, a very wealthy former investment banker, has paid an effective tax rate of 15 per cent against 23 per cent paid by Obama.
In the UK the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, is targeting the rich with a ‘mansion tax’ that concentrates on properties worth more than $1 million. Meanwhile, Clegg’s Labour opposition is talking about a more widespread ‘wealth tax’.
In France the debate has reached fever pitch after Bernard Arnault, the richest man in France, announced he is looking at changing to Belgian citizenship – a move which would allow him to avoid a 75 per cent wealth tax being prosecuted by Socialist French Prime Minister Francois Hollande. The move prompted left-wing French newspaper Liberation to taunt the tycoon behind luxury goods maker LMVH with the headline ‘Get lost you rich idiot’.
We’re not quite debating wealth taxes yet in Australia but there are clear signals alluded to by Nasser that the Gillard regime is going to target ‘the rich’ in the months ahead.
Two factors point to a ‘rich hunt’: A Labor government consistently vilifying rich entrepreneurs, led by Treasurer Wayne Swan’s attacks on mining tycoons, and rumours of a crackdown in DIY superannuation – where the average fund balance is reportedly $900,000 versus an average balance for the majority of funds held by ‘ordinary Australians’ of less than $50,000.
Nasser suggested the risk now in Australia is that rich entrepreneurs will literally run from a government which they believe is out to get them: They’ll head for Singapore or Switzerland.
The former Ford boss, who is a self made corporate captain who rose from a modest Lebanese immigrant family, can mount these arguments with impunity because he represents the best form of winner in a capitalist society. Moreover, we know his salary ($1.1 million a year from BHP) and we know he pays tax (because he works for a closely monitored public company).
But the answer is not to leave the rich alone: The answer is surely to reward hard work and risk taking and to tax wealth when it starts to represent what they used to call ‘the unacceptable face of capitalism’.
Perhaps the most contentious rich are those who make huge salaries from poorly performing companies. But it must be said there is genuine progress being made here as the second year of ASIC’s 'two strikes' rule really hit home in the last reporting season with a string of under-performing CEOs forgoing pay rises, including Nasser’s own understudy, BHP chief Marius Kloppers. (The rule means executives can be voted off a board if they get protest votes from shareholders two years in a row.)
Ironically, it seems the government is chasing the wrong type of rich: Entrepreneurs such as the mining titans identified by Swan and aspirational investors typified by DIY funds are what makes for a successful economy. Meanwhile, Australia remains free of any form of inheritance tax. As leading investment banker Mark Carnegie put it at the time of the last tax convention in Canberra: “Everybody else gets taxed when they get income, but somebody who gets money from daddy or mummy can then turn around and pay no tax on that.” If the Gillard regime wants to pinch the rich, inheritance tax could be the best place to start.
As the chairman of BHP Billiton, Jac Nasser knew exactly what he was walking into this week when he suggested the very rich should be left alone. Nasser more than most is in a position to gauge a global move to increases taxes on the world’s wealthiest.
In the US President Obama has resurrected the notion of ‘class war’ with a focus on the lack of tax paid by his Republican opponent Mitt Romney. Romney, a very wealthy former investment banker, has paid an effective tax rate of 15 per cent against 23 per cent paid by Obama.
In the UK the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, is targeting the rich with a ‘mansion tax’ that concentrates on properties worth more than $1 million. Meanwhile, Clegg’s Labour opposition is talking about a more widespread ‘wealth tax’.
In France the debate has reached fever pitch after Bernard Arnault, the richest man in France, announced he is looking at changing to Belgian citizenship – a move which would allow him to avoid a 75 per cent wealth tax being prosecuted by Socialist French Prime Minister Francois Hollande. The move prompted left-wing French newspaper Liberation to taunt the tycoon behind luxury goods maker LMVH with the headline ‘Get lost you rich idiot’.
We’re not quite debating wealth taxes yet in Australia but there are clear signals alluded to by Nasser that the Gillard regime is going to target ‘the rich’ in the months ahead.
Two factors point to a ‘rich hunt’: A Labor government consistently vilifying rich entrepreneurs, led by Treasurer Wayne Swan’s attacks on mining tycoons, and rumours of a crackdown in DIY superannuation – where the average fund balance is reportedly $900,000 versus an average balance for the majority of funds held by ‘ordinary Australians’ of less than $50,000.
Nasser suggested the risk now in Australia is that rich entrepreneurs will literally run from a government which they believe is out to get them: They’ll head for Singapore or Switzerland.
The former Ford boss, who is a self made corporate captain who rose from a modest Lebanese immigrant family, can mount these arguments with impunity because he represents the best form of winner in a capitalist society. Moreover, we know his salary ($1.1 million a year from BHP) and we know he pays tax (because he works for a closely monitored public company).
But the answer is not to leave the rich alone: The answer is surely to reward hard work and risk taking and to tax wealth when it starts to represent what they used to call ‘the unacceptable face of capitalism’.
Perhaps the most contentious rich are those who make huge salaries from poorly performing companies. But it must be said there is genuine progress being made here as the second year of ASIC’s 'two strikes' rule really hit home in the last reporting season with a string of under-performing CEOs forgoing pay rises, including Nasser’s own understudy, BHP chief Marius Kloppers. (The rule means executives can be voted off a board if they get protest votes from shareholders two years in a row.)
Ironically, it seems the government is chasing the wrong type of rich: Entrepreneurs such as the mining titans identified by Swan and aspirational investors typified by DIY funds are what makes for a successful economy. Meanwhile, Australia remains free of any form of inheritance tax. As leading investment banker Mark Carnegie put it at the time of the last tax convention in Canberra: “Everybody else gets taxed when they get income, but somebody who gets money from daddy or mummy can then turn around and pay no tax on that.” If the Gillard regime wants to pinch the rich, inheritance tax could be the best place to start.
I take issue with the suggestion that the CEOs of poorly performing companies are paid too much.
I got a six figure salary for agreeing to try and manage a "poorly performing company" and I don't begrudge Joyce one cent for taking on the huge job of turning Qantas around, even if I don't agree with anything he is doing.
Being a CEO is an endless procession of "wicked problems" that have no easy solution, if there is even a solution at all. It exercises you Twenty Four hours a day, Seven days a week. Most CEO's don't get to "retire" gracefully either. They are just dumped either for not being able to deal with the latest problem in the business or simply because the Directors like the idea of having a fresh face around.
I got a six figure salary for agreeing to try and manage a "poorly performing company" and I don't begrudge Joyce one cent for taking on the huge job of turning Qantas around, even if I don't agree with anything he is doing.
Being a CEO is an endless procession of "wicked problems" that have no easy solution, if there is even a solution at all. It exercises you Twenty Four hours a day, Seven days a week. Most CEO's don't get to "retire" gracefully either. They are just dumped either for not being able to deal with the latest problem in the business or simply because the Directors like the idea of having a fresh face around.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk say Sunfish very funny man. Company not "under performing" until Son of Dick and Juice man become Chiefs of tribe. Son of Dick say he not get out of bed for six figures. Big Chiefs never pushed from plane, always given parachute made of gold. Squawk think gold funny thing to make parachute from, but no matter, Big Chief come back to earth as not wise consulting man. Tell mini Son of Dick how he do job he already paid too many beads to do. Chiefs very happy, get make more Chiefs. Indians not happy, not enough Indians.
Last edited by Squawk-7600; 16th Sep 2012 at 03:52.
Am i correct in thinking from the above post that QF paxs arriving in Dubai for connections on Emirates European ports will have a 3/5 hour transit?
short flights long nights
EK has flights departing to European destinations almost 24/7, it would probably depend on which destination. ( I could be wrong of course)
Am i correct in thinking from the above post that QF paxs arriving in Dubai for connections on Emirates European ports will have a 3/5 hour transit?
Not if they catch the EK flight ex Oz as well. This codeshare should work out really swell for QF hey?
the Don
Not if they catch the EK flight ex Oz as well. This codeshare should work out really swell for QF hey?
the Don
the don, youve hit the nail on the head i think.