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

Jetstar 787's

Old 10th Oct 2013, 09:23
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 208
Tech crew rest

So if tech crew rest isn't fitted then european flights can be ruled out? Surely you wouldn't allow a curtained off premium economy seat for 'rest' on a 10+hr sector?

Last edited by dizzylizzy; 10th Oct 2013 at 09:24.
dizzylizzy is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 09:50
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,303
the 330s have a curtained off business seat.

whether thats sufficient for wsss to europe i dont know
waren9 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 09:52
  #183 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,176
Talking

A bunch of years back I remember one of our crew (and a top bloke as well) summed it up thus:

All silver colours are metalics,ie they are not a solid colour such as white red blue etc.They have small particles of metal that give it that irridesance appearance.Bit like buying a family car in a 'metalic' colour.And as such they all need a coat of clear to prevent oxidation.Clear coats are affected primarily by UV sunlight which tend to break them down and hence tend to dull,craze and discolour.

So at the end of the day anyone who paints a jet silver is a moron.
Keg is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 12:02
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
In a normal config, I believe max payload range is 5500nm.

Wouldn't the Jetstar config of 335 be payload restricted to Europe?

I wouldn't be surprised if history repeats itself (like the A330) & JQ redeploy the 787 to fly out of Asia.

A config of 335 and shorter hops around Asia might be the grand plan.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 12:22
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,303
well keg, of all the cars i've ever owned, its the metallic jobbies that've held their lustre better. its the solid colours that need a cut from time to time.

cant speak for airplane paint tho
waren9 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 23:27
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 252
. So if tech crew rest isn't fitted then european flights can be ruled out? Surely you wouldn't allow a curtained off premium economy seat for 'rest' on a 10+hr sector?
I can't really see jetstar ever being a long haul low cost airline with 10+hr sectors. I don't think I have even heard of a low cost carrier making a profit on long haul.
pull-up-terrain is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2013, 23:58
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Then again, we'd never heard of a legacy carrier successfully launching a profitable low cost carrier of their own, without caniballising the carrier's business, had we?!

If you've got a seemingly impossible/improbable problem, come and ask the QF B team... They'll 'leverage their experience' for you
OneDotLow is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 04:29
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,161
Qantas to go firm on the -9?

From Australian Business Traveller a couple of days ago.... .???

Qantas sets its sights on Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 04:33
  #189 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,176
All part of the narrative. I reckon they'll announce the 787 for mainline about mid next year..... when they announce that their magical transformation is on track to break even and return to profit and the 787 is the vehicle which will bring about that improved profitability.
Keg is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 06:09
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Beech or the Office.
Age: 9
Posts: 331
Mainline crew might crew the B787, but you will have no choice but to do it on Jetstar T&Cs.

Ask yourself the all important question!

Q. If you were running the business(ie if it was YOUR business), why would you pay one lot of employees more than the other to do exactly the same job?
A. You wouldn't!


You blokes are dreaming if you think you will crew it under your present conditions.

It aint eva going to happen!
Normasars is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 06:48
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
All part of the narrative. I reckon they'll announce the 787 for mainline about mid next year..... when they announce that their magical transformation is on track to break even and return to profit and the 787 is the vehicle which will bring about that improved profitability.
A senior manager recently said. The mainline fleet age is commercial in confidence. Hence they report the "groups" fleet age.

Whilst one part of the group has a relatively young average fleet age, another part of the group has a distinctly older fleet age.

What the investment community has failed to realise due reporting a "group" fleet age is over investment in one part of the business & under investment in another.

MC.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 06:48
  #192 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,176
Q. If you were running the business(ie if it was YOUR business), why would you pay one lot of employees more than the other to do exactly the same job?
A. You wouldn't!
They are now so why wouldn't they in the future? Further, there are transmission of business issues to cross here as well.

You blokes are dreaming if you think you will crew it under your present conditions.
QF are after efficiencies when it comes to the 787. Despite the general belief to the contrary, we've been prepared to look at efficiencies for quite some time now. EG: currently 767 crew are cheaper per ASK than mainline 737 crew. I reckon that would put us very, very close to the cost per ASK for a J* A320 or J* A330. We don't need to be too much more efficient to be 'on the mark' to get to fly the 787. It may be a set of conditions slightly different to the current ones but will certainly be acceptable.

Further, many crew look at the current conditions- designed for 707s and extrapolated to the 744 when aeroplanes flew for max 14 hours- and realise that it's not a situation that can continue into perpetuity. Again, it's an issue that crew have been open to for some time.

I think part of the issue with many people on PPRuNe is that they see what AJ tells the media about pilots (normally the max earners on the A380) and then project that across all fleets. Many PPRuNe contributors don't actually realise the reality. That doesn't bother me overly much but it does amuse me when I read comments that talk about how over priced I am despite the fact that I'm in part of the group that has contributed to massive profits over the past bunch of years- more than J* anyway! It also amuses me when people tell me I'm dreaming if I think I'll get the 787 on current terms and conditions when they're not entirely authorities on current terms and conditions as it is let alone the negotiations that have taken place to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. At the end of the day, agreeing to a deal for the 787 is a shite load cheaper than 400+ redundancies.

Last edited by Keg; 11th Oct 2013 at 06:52.
Keg is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 06:57
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
Keg,

The big efficiencies are achieved in the aircraft that Mainline operate.

It was reported last week that as the 767 retires & are replaced by A330's domestically.

Rationalising the domestic operation to two fleets types, the operating cost would reduce by around 10% and would be within (If my memory serves me correctly) about 5% of Virgins.

These efficiency gains were achieved without ANY changes to the Long or Short Haul EBA.

Considering crew costs are only about 3% of the airlines operating costs, it pales into insignificance compared to operating fuel efficient jets.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 08:08
  #194 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,176
Mstr Caution, I'm not going to go into detail here but until we actually DO sort our some of the inefficiencies that actually do exist in our award then we continue to give the company the opportunity to go to other entities.

Last edited by Keg; 11th Oct 2013 at 08:08.
Keg is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 08:38
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: moomooland
Posts: 56
Code:
At the end of the day, agreeing to a deal for the 787 is a shite load cheaper than 400+ redundancies.
Code:
Considering crew costs are only about 3% of the airlines operating costs, it pales into insignificance compared to operating fuel efficient jets.
Amen.

Last edited by h.o.t.a.s.; 11th Oct 2013 at 08:41.
h.o.t.a.s. is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 09:02
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,303
i think we'd have to play the game smarter if we want to argue the transfer of business issue. jetstar has been around a while now. precedent set. and aipa got spanked in the jetconnect court case for equivalent terms

i doubt mgmnt will have any trouble at all putting those 787s on any au aoc they want

Last edited by waren9; 11th Oct 2013 at 09:05.
waren9 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 12:49
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
I'm not going to go into detail here but until we actually DO sort our some of the inefficiencies that actually do exist in our award then we continue to give the company the opportunity to go to other entities.
I agree with you Keg, but you also have to recall the previous form of the organisation your dealing with.

I recall LH pilots accepting a pay freeze with the promise they would be looked after later.

The company still went elsewhere to crew aircraft.

The problem the company has is they have played the industrial hard ball for too long & the pilots no longer trust anything they are told by management.

So management have responded with group love in's in an attempt to engage the pilots that they actually disengaged.

Dont forget, not only the massive cost of making long haul pilots redundant but also the down training costs in reverse seniority.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 12:57
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,303
down training costs in reverse seniority.
afaik thats yet to be tested/enforced.

regardless of any agreement, if the company pleads hardship in court, it'll be a battle to get
waren9 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 13:00
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 295
regardless of any agreement, if the company pleads hardship in court, it'll be a battle to get
What do you base this on specifically?
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 20:36
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 165
And if you blokes hadn't signed up for such crap conditions none of us would have to be on these conditions .
spelling_nazi is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.