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

Jetstar 787's

Old 14th Oct 2013, 23:06
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,166
Qantas isn't funding these aircraft through its own cash flows.
Oh really?

Qantas plumps for Boeing - Business - Business - theage.com.au

Qantas will fund the new planes from cash flows.
The question is whose? I am damn sure Jetstar isn't paying for the aircraft through its own cash flows and then paying lease payments to Qantas.
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2013, 23:14
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,166
QAL don't normally bother with local leasing companies as they can finance the aircraft far cheaper themselves.
Oh really?

Here are the last few A320's received by Jetstar. Some are owned by Qantas, some are owned by leasing companies. Why doesn't Qantas use leasing companies for all of them?


VH VFQ
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5780
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 19 August 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 19 August 2013
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Building QCA/3 10 Bourke Road
MASCOT NSW 2020
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 19 August 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFP
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5775
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 19 August 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 19 August 2013
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Building QCA/3 10 Bourke Road
MASCOT NSW 2020
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 19 August 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFU
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5814
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 01 October 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 01 October 2013
QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
Building QCA/3 10 Bourke Road
MASCOT NSW 2020
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 01 October 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFL
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5489
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 25 January 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 25 January 2013
WINTER MSN 5489 LIMITED
Block B, Riverside IV Sir John Rogersons Quay
DUBLIN 2
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
Registered operator as of 25 January 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFO
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5631
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 21 May 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 21 May 2013
BOC AVIATION (USA) CORPORATION
C/O BOC Aviation Pte. Ltd., 8, Shenton Way, #18-01
SINGAPORE . 068811
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Registered operator as of 21 May 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFN
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5566
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 12 March 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 12 March 2013
BOC AVIATION (USA) CORPORATION
C/O BOC Aviation Pte. Ltd., 8, Shenton Way, #18-01
SINGAPORE . 068811
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Registered operator as of 12 March 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
VH VFT
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turbofan engines

Manufacturer: AIRBUS INDUSTRIE
Model: A320-232
Serial number: 5532
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 20 September 2013
Year of manufacture: 2013

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 20 September 2013
BOC AVIATION (USA) CORPORATION
C/O BOC Aviation Pte. Ltd., 8, Shenton Way, #18-01
SINGAPORE . 068811
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Registered operator as of 20 September 2013
JETSTAR AIRWAYS PTY LIMITED
Level 4 222 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 00:11
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Syd, NSW
Posts: 326
The opaqueness of these leasing arrangements and the cost of aircraft acquisition needs to be addressed.
Capt Kremin,

Why don't you dial in at the next "Connections" and ask the question?

Surely our Dear leader was genuine when signing the sacred parchment with its commitment to
communicate and consult with openness and transparency
CaptCloudbuster is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 03:19
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,166
My theory..?

International was doing just fine in 2008. It was the major contributor to the record profit attained that year. Enter Joyce and the "Promote Jetstar at all costs," mantra.

So what has happened since then?

* In 2009 Qantas NZ becomes part of Jetstar International, a company that does not actually exists. Pax numbers reports of Jetstar International leap 100% as NZ domestic passengers are counted as Jetstar International passengers. Nowhere is this acknowledged.

*Massive orders for A320's and 787's, none of which are currently slated for mainline but are to be paid from Qantas cash flow. The plan however is for used 787's to go to mainline, once their Boeing supplied free maintenance is used. Nowhere is this acknowledged except in the pronouncements of various execs that "The LCC model doesn't work unless you have new aircraft..".. Now we know why.

* Steadily shrinking profits announced and attributed to Qantas International, even though load factors remain stubbornly high and higher than Jetstar International.

* 8 A380 slated for mainline are effectively cancelled. 747's and 767's are removed from the fleet and not replaced. Joyce states that not one penny will be invested in mainline till it shows a profit. (??!!) This is because all the spare cash is going to paying for 110 A320's for Jetstar.

* Used A330's returned to mainline. The finish of 787 deliveries coincides with the projected "turnaround" of Mainline International. This probably means that the cash flow needed to physically buy the 787's reduces and can be put towards an actual profit. Nowhere is it acknowledged that the "losses" of mainline are actually the cost of buying A320's and 787's for Jetstar.

Or am I being cynical?
Capt Kremin is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 04:00
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Outofoz
Posts: 655
Kremin another way of looking at it...
The entire investment community with an interest in qantas has been sold a pup.
Still, we all need heroes. Another view point....
First ten pages are a bit heavy but read from 11 onwards...
www.apira2013.org/proceedings/pdfs/K256.pdf
hotnhigh is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 06:03
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 739
I don't see why we are suprised that numbers are distributed around the 'group' as and when it suits. I own three properties, they are run under a 'company' banner and depending on what my accountant thinks some are profitable in some years at the expense of others and then it may change the next year. Depends what 'mix' gives me the best overall return for my company.

I know it is a different scale, but is doesn't suprise me that over the past few years it has 'suited' the group to show Qantas International as a bit of a basket case to enable the board to force their agenda (whatever that may be), it will no doubt be an amazing reversal over the next couple of years once they are done.

Constantly winding ourselves up about this 'less than commercial' rates type stuff will drive you insane. The company report what and how they are legally required to do, beyond that it is up to them if they want 'cook' the books for the benefit of gaining leverage against the staff. Sad but true.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 06:52
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 113
Onion

Couldn't agree more
toolish is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 07:27
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YMML
Age: 27
Posts: 165
Just a side note VFT was slated for JQHK and has ended up down here... that could be why they have a different company.

It will be interesting to see how VA goes with TT potentially on the same mindset...
ASY68 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 08:12
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 12
Great Work

Going through immigration yesterday and a QF 330 S/O said hi. Had been called in as third crew member as flight time was to high for 2 crew operations due winds,7hrs 25 mins. Our flight time 2 crew was 9hrs 15 mins 2 crew.
Your award is extremely generous and is one of the main reasons for the transfer of flying. Enjoy it and stop blaming JQ for your position.
Jetbest is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 08:39
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Jetbest,

That is complete bullshit and a misleading post. The two guys were going over 30 hours in 7 days and required an s/o to go past that requirement.

Stick to the facts and don't spin BS to hide the fact that you and your like are accepting t&c that has the aviation industry in Australia in a tailspin.

Last edited by Stalins ugly Brother; 15th Oct 2013 at 08:40.
Stalins ugly Brother is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 08:39
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 198
Ollie, I take your point with the creative accounting between businesses within one parent group but the difference is that your three properties don't each have employees whose livelihoods are impacted or shareholders who suffer.
Buckshot is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 09:08
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Going nowhere...
Posts: 306
Jetbest...

I'm only posting lest someone thinks I am you!

Why gloat over what some might view as an idiotic 2-pilot ToD? Some might argue that the QF award is extremely sensible w.r.t. FTLs and has contributed to the safety record QF so obviously enjoys and trades upon.... even to the point of allowing the misconception that all parts of 'the Group' work under the same safe, sensible rules.

and...

please consider getting another name.

JETSBEST; the original.

Last edited by Jetsbest; 15th Oct 2013 at 09:21.
Jetsbest is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 09:16
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 18
My theory..?

International was doing just fine in 2008. It was the major contributor to the record profit attained that year. Enter Joyce and the "Promote Jetstar at all costs," mantra.

So what has happened since then?
The GFC. Where have you been living?
Tony the Tiler is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 12:15
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Keflavik
Posts: 7

Quote: QAL don't normally bother with local leasing companies as they can finance the aircraft far cheaper themselves.
Oh really?
Here are the last few A320's received by Jetstar. Some are owned by Qantas, some are owned by leasing companies. Why doesn't Qantas use leasing companies for all of them?
See my reference to local leasing companies. There is no conspiracy between former Qantas execs and who they now use for leasing, as you suggested earlier.

QAL use whomever and whatever structure can provide them with the cheapest cost of funding. Most of the time this is bank debt or capital markets issuances through the usual international financing suspects. Even the US Government has provided financing through Ex-Im for the 744ERs.

QAL's balance sheet doesn't have the free cash flow capacity to support outright purchases of aircraft for long periods. They will purchase the aircraft and then promptly use the aircraft as collateral for financing purposes.

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 25 January 2013
WINTER MSN 5489 LIMITED
Block B, Riverside IV Sir John Rogersons Quay
...
Full Registration
Registration holder as of 21 May 2013
BOC AVIATION (USA) CORPORATION
C/O BOC Aviation Pte. Ltd., 8, Shenton Way, #18-01
WINTER MSN 5489 Limited is an Irish Special Purpose Vehicle setup by a subsidiary of hedge fund Terra Firma, who then issue debt securities against this aircraft and the creditworthiness of QAL and JetStar. This is the structure they (and many hedge funds) utilise. Ultimately most of the cash for this aircraft comes from Nomura and Morgan Stanley.

BOC AVIATION (USA) Corporation is Bank of China's aircraft lending division - with funding coming from the entire Chinese economy.

Alas there is really no hidden conspiracy here. Cross-border aircraft financing was my bread-and-butter for 10 years, and Qantas were one of the best airlines in the business for negotiating with their financiers.
spotfx is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 12:35
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 44
Posts: 1,011
Jetbest,
I have beaten that hands down!
26.50 tour of duty 2 pilot on the QF shorthaul award! Beat that! Even Jetstar couldnt!
Angle of Attack is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2013, 20:52
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever I can log on.
Posts: 1,672
Posted by Tony the Tiler

The GFC. Where have you been living?
Tony, since the GFC the QF Mainline loads (including QF International) have held up very well - the yields have reduced but nowhere near the sudden reversal of profits that occurred when Joyce took over. He pulled us off the FRA route despite the route having a yearly load factor of 83% (he also killed the AKL-LAX route due to the changes that he made).

As things currently stand, the loads/yields that QF International are currently experiencing do not reflect the "losses" that this management are reporting.
Going Boeing is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2013, 07:48
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 739
Buckshot,

I totally agree, problem these days is that head office management are so removed from the day to day employees they start to view us just as I would view chattels in my properties. I am always surprised how little 'compassion' figures in some of these decisions, unfortunately hat is the world we live in.
Ollie Onion is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2013, 10:32
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 18
EITHER:

The Auditors, Accounting Firms, Banks, Institutional Investors, Senior Management, the Chairman along with the entire Board - are all conspiring (illegally) to falsify documents required under continuous disclosure requirements for publicly listed companies - to mislead you into believing that Jetstar is profitable and Qantas International is losing money.

OR:

Jetstar is profitable and Qantas International is losing money.
Tony the Tiler is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2013, 11:01
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 811
People believe what they want to.

I've spent a couple of years financing a business purchase. I spoke to a number of complete tools at banks but one of the more outstanding cretins I met was with a very well known Aussie bank. I got to the stage where I might have made it clear to the cretin that he was a cretin and then interesting stuff came out. My deal wasn't important because he had a meeting in a few hours with Elaine who was one of his 'major' clients. I was naturally totally enthralled that I might be meeting someone who mixed in such exalted circles and heard the biggest concoction of bull dust I have ever heard. It was clear that neither this idiot banker or his idiot client knew the first thing about airlines, or indeed even selling a bag of mixed lollies at a school tuck shop. It was sickening to listen to.

Bankers etc 'want' to drink idiots Kool Aid because their bonuses depend on them believing it enough to convince their superiors to get their deal across the line. And as one smart one told me 'It doesn't matter if you turn out to have been wrong, as long as the argument is strong enough to hold water when you present it'.

Castles made of sand. Like subprime, the piper will need to be paid. And it's not the frauds and idiots that cause the problems who end up paying....
V-Jet is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2013, 21:37
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 242
Tony, I call bullsh!t on your binary choice false paradigm. The world is grey, not black and white. It is a question of language, definitions and fine print.

The following AASB extract will demonstrate that the accounting standards give large scope & flexibility to an organisation for its own internal accounts. Provided the internal policies meet the what is required under the standard, the auditor can sign-off. The organisation can then go and make public statements about their profit on their loss on the basis of "The Standard" by external examination. So it is a question of what "The Standard" allows. This is not be a binary OR choice as you assert. It is a game of words, footnotes and subtleties.

Normally the internal accounting machinations are "netted out on consolidation", and thus have no effect on overall P&L of the entity. However, when those internal accounts are used to prosecute an Industrial Relations or other agenda, a much closer look needs to be taken at those accounts, and what "The Standard" says. The Standard says revenues & expenses can be allocated on a reasonable basis. Define reasonable in a highly complex operating system involving hundreds of internal entities operating across multiple opaque jurisdictions with revenues in multiple currencies. Do you really believe an external auditor could reasonably be expected to have the ability to verify the reasonableness of all internal segment revenues and expenses?

I am not alleging any illegality, just the opposite. All the groups you mention are operating completely within the law & accounting standards, to the letter. However, the letter of the law gives much flexibility. It is a question of what the The Standard says. These groups are not lying, however, equally they haven't provided any evidence as to the basis of their assertions. Because these statements cannot be falsified on the information provided, they are completely without meaning.

It is remarkably simple, release the internal accounts for QF International including footnotes. Without these accounts, there is no way to verify what effect segment accounting has its or any other group entities P&L within the overall group structure. Without the accounts including notes, segment P&L cannot be determined.

AASB 114 Segment Reporting

Look closely at the definition of Segment Revenue & Segment expenses [pages 12 ~ 13]

Segment accounting policies are the accounting policies adopted for preparing and presenting the financial reports of the consolidated group or entity as well as those accounting policies that relate specifically to segment reporting.

17. The definitions of
segment revenue segment expense segment assets and segment liabilities include amounts of such items that are directly attributable to a segment and amounts of such items that can be allocated to a segment on a reasonable basis. An entity looks to its internal financial reporting system as the starting point for identifying those items that can be directly attributed, or reasonably allocated, to segments. That is, there is a presumption that amounts that have been identified with segments for internal financial reporting purposes are directly attributable or reasonably allocable to segments for the purpose of measuring the segment revenue, segment expense, segment assets, and segment liabilities of reportable segments.


18. In some cases, however, a revenue, expense, asset, or liability may have been allocated to segments for internal financial reporting purposes on a basis that is understood by entity management but that could be deemed subjective, arbitrary, or difficult to understand by external users of financial reports. Such an allocation would not constitute a reasonable basis under the definitions of segment revenue, segment expense, segment assets, and segment liabilities in this Standard. Conversely, an entity may choose not to allocate some item of revenue, expense, asset, or liability for internal financial reporting purposes, even though a reasonable basis for doing so exists. Such an item is allocated pursuant to the definitions of segment revenue, segment expense, segment assets, and segment liabilities in this Standard.

Last edited by FYSTI; 16th Oct 2013 at 21:41.
FYSTI 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.