MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
Its the right colour, but wrong spelling. PRAVDA is not spelt with a 'Q'.
Refute the Engineering claims then (we would all be happier with that) without resorting to the 'Yes Minister' circular argument of 'We investigated and there is nothing to worry about'.
If Fed Sec is correct (and given there will soon only be one LAME at Qantas it seems likely) then Qantas either doesn't have or is fast losing the skill to oversee maintenance. Qantas should be able to provide details and qualifications of LAME's who are accompanying these aircraft overseas.
Allow forensic accounting and you will find staff bending over backwards to help - but staff need to know ACCURATELY where there is a problem. Especially so given the suspicions. Saying your accounts are audited is again avoiding the question. Qantas is a publicly listed company. They HAVE to be audited. Just like ENRON's were, except ENRON's were audited to arguably far higher accounting standards.
Licence should be spelt with a "c"
A. Milne wrote Winnie the Pooh. I am not sure he is the person I would use to comment on the maintenance standards of Heavy Jets.
Refute the Engineering claims then (we would all be happier with that) without resorting to the 'Yes Minister' circular argument of 'We investigated and there is nothing to worry about'.
If Fed Sec is correct (and given there will soon only be one LAME at Qantas it seems likely) then Qantas either doesn't have or is fast losing the skill to oversee maintenance. Qantas should be able to provide details and qualifications of LAME's who are accompanying these aircraft overseas.
Allow forensic accounting and you will find staff bending over backwards to help - but staff need to know ACCURATELY where there is a problem. Especially so given the suspicions. Saying your accounts are audited is again avoiding the question. Qantas is a publicly listed company. They HAVE to be audited. Just like ENRON's were, except ENRON's were audited to arguably far higher accounting standards.
Licence should be spelt with a "c"
A. Milne wrote Winnie the Pooh. I am not sure he is the person I would use to comment on the maintenance standards of Heavy Jets.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Inside their OODA loop
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Qantas
This is a baseless claim that has never been substantiated
Alan Joyce admits Jetconnect does not pay for its own fuel.
Senator XENOPHON: But, again, Mr Joyce, I just want to get a clarification so I can understand this: in terms of aircraft operating variable cost, does that include fuel?
Mr Joyce : The operating aircraft cost we do covers fuel. We have to check it on this occasion, but it is irrelevant to the reporting of this segment, because this segment makes its reports. It is a wet lease provider and as part of the wet lease provision it provides that capacity to Qantas and the profitability of those operations are reported in the Qantas segment. The purpose of this is not like Jetstar in Asia—
...
Senator XENOPHON: But Mr Joyce said a minute ago that it does include fuel or it does not include fuel.
Mr Joyce : Aircraft operating variables, we usually report those, but we are checking on this one because it may not include fuel in Jetconnect's case.
...
Senator XENOPHON: I am just trying to sort this out—and I am not suggesting anything improper. Regarding the revenue from operating activities of NZ$73.4 million in 2011, you have manpower and staff related costs of $37 million, aircraft operating variable costs of $23.9 million and 'other' costs of $5.3 million. That is $66 million. And you had some other revenue, so it is $77 million in revenue, $66 million in expenditure and profit before related income tax expense of $11.2 million. Is fuel not included in that?
Mr Joyce : No, it is not.
Mr Joyce : The operating aircraft cost we do covers fuel. We have to check it on this occasion, but it is irrelevant to the reporting of this segment, because this segment makes its reports. It is a wet lease provider and as part of the wet lease provision it provides that capacity to Qantas and the profitability of those operations are reported in the Qantas segment. The purpose of this is not like Jetstar in Asia—
...
Senator XENOPHON: But Mr Joyce said a minute ago that it does include fuel or it does not include fuel.
Mr Joyce : Aircraft operating variables, we usually report those, but we are checking on this one because it may not include fuel in Jetconnect's case.
...
Senator XENOPHON: I am just trying to sort this out—and I am not suggesting anything improper. Regarding the revenue from operating activities of NZ$73.4 million in 2011, you have manpower and staff related costs of $37 million, aircraft operating variable costs of $23.9 million and 'other' costs of $5.3 million. That is $66 million. And you had some other revenue, so it is $77 million in revenue, $66 million in expenditure and profit before related income tax expense of $11.2 million. Is fuel not included in that?
Mr Joyce : No, it is not.
Who pays for the fuel, because some entity is? Could it be Qantas International, or perhaps another entity within the business? Therefore, by Mr Joyce's own statements, is this not cost shifting between entities within the group?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forensic accounting will do nothing....
Consider the following situation.
Jetstar A330 gets heavy maintenance at QF Engineering facility (note unsure if this sits under QF Dom or QF Int for reporting in any event so will just call it Engineering).
What is the appropriate charge for this work.
-- Cost of employees doing the work only - effectively marginal cost, facilities not being used otherwise.
-- Cost of employees plus allocation of QF management overheads and lease/depreciation cost of buildings
-- Above plus say 10% for some profit
-- Direct benchmark versus what someone else - say HAECO charges.
I suspect any of the four can be justified to an auditer - each would have a different impact on the bottom lines of the Jetstar / QF Engineering division.
Consider the following situation.
Jetstar A330 gets heavy maintenance at QF Engineering facility (note unsure if this sits under QF Dom or QF Int for reporting in any event so will just call it Engineering).
What is the appropriate charge for this work.
-- Cost of employees doing the work only - effectively marginal cost, facilities not being used otherwise.
-- Cost of employees plus allocation of QF management overheads and lease/depreciation cost of buildings
-- Above plus say 10% for some profit
-- Direct benchmark versus what someone else - say HAECO charges.
I suspect any of the four can be justified to an auditer - each would have a different impact on the bottom lines of the Jetstar / QF Engineering division.
Moa,
The problem I see it now is that its not Auditing that have to be satisfied, but the staff. The legal issues with 'standard' auditing are (as you say) easy to pass with flying colours. There are specific questions that are being asked as forcefully as possible by staff that have been ignored now for years.
Wouldn't it be so much easier to answer them and make the problem go away?
Or can't they be answered????
If CEO of an airline can't remember what it is costing to store 11? brand new aircraft at a total cost of some USD$4.4m per MONTH then I would suspect he can't/won't.
And thats the problem. He is a liar, incompetent businessman and has no understanding of company culture or the airline industry as a whole.
The problem I see it now is that its not Auditing that have to be satisfied, but the staff. The legal issues with 'standard' auditing are (as you say) easy to pass with flying colours. There are specific questions that are being asked as forcefully as possible by staff that have been ignored now for years.
Wouldn't it be so much easier to answer them and make the problem go away?
Or can't they be answered????
If CEO of an airline can't remember what it is costing to store 11? brand new aircraft at a total cost of some USD$4.4m per MONTH then I would suspect he can't/won't.
And thats the problem. He is a liar, incompetent businessman and has no understanding of company culture or the airline industry as a whole.
Having watched the actions of Edwards last night. I could only think of one thing.....
Finally, it becomes apparent the arrogance that certain members of qantas senior management run with, holds no bounds.
One day they will be held to account. Unfortunately though, qantas will no longer exist.
The corporate culture in the place is toxic.
And now its migrating to other organisations...
Helloworld board orders probe of "management style" | Travel Weekly
Finally, it becomes apparent the arrogance that certain members of qantas senior management run with, holds no bounds.
One day they will be held to account. Unfortunately though, qantas will no longer exist.
The corporate culture in the place is toxic.
And now its migrating to other organisations...
Helloworld board orders probe of "management style" | Travel Weekly
Just for the record, Senator Sean Edwards is NOT 'unrepresentative swill' as claimed for he was actually elected to the Senate by South Australian voters in General Election of 2010. Certain here may not have liked or appreciated it, but he did a wonderful job skewering a vocal but uninformed union official last night in Canberra. Said union official was sadly found to be wanting.
On the other hand, Nathan Safe and his colleague shone a bright light on matters outside Qantas' control that have adversely affected it in recent years. I hope the Senators listened carefully to what they said as there were really on the money, unlike a certain other witness who appeared just before them.
On the other hand, Nathan Safe and his colleague shone a bright light on matters outside Qantas' control that have adversely affected it in recent years. I hope the Senators listened carefully to what they said as there were really on the money, unlike a certain other witness who appeared just before them.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Queensland
Age: 75
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
The Senator got 8.76% of the vote (0.61 of a quota) - he was therefore dragged across into the Senate on Party lines.
Voting in the Senate is "unrepresentative swill" since, as you know perfectly well, a drover's dog can become a Senator because of a numerical accident - look at the WA Senate (about to be re-voted upon) but a candidate for motoring enthusiasts actually elected before this upcoming new vote?
Yes there are many worthy members of the Senate, but some of the questions the other night were crap and pure politicking.
The Senator got 8.76% of the vote (0.61 of a quota) - he was therefore dragged across into the Senate on Party lines.
Voting in the Senate is "unrepresentative swill" since, as you know perfectly well, a drover's dog can become a Senator because of a numerical accident - look at the WA Senate (about to be re-voted upon) but a candidate for motoring enthusiasts actually elected before this upcoming new vote?
Yes there are many worthy members of the Senate, but some of the questions the other night were crap and pure politicking.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buying up v parking up
Qantas' biggest shareholder buys up amid price dip
Jetstar Hong Kong planes stay grounded as wait continues
Qantas' biggest shareholder buys up amid price dip
Jetstar Hong Kong planes stay grounded as wait continues
Last edited by TIMA9X; 19th Mar 2014 at 05:17. Reason: add pic
es there are many worthy members of the Senate, but some of the questions the other night were crap and pure politicking
ALAEA Fed Sec Not sure which union official Edwards was supposed to have skewed last night but I had no problems answering his questions.
Also, if the majority of your membership is with Qantas, wouldn't and shouldn't it be appropriate for most of your travel be with that Company? Or does VA offer you upgrades and access to 'The Club' or whatever it is that they call their lounge?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never stepped foot into the Virgin invitational club or been invited. I almost always travel economy even on 14 hour sectors.
I guess that leaves you to attack my spelling. Good luck with that.
I guess that leaves you to attack my spelling. Good luck with that.
Trent,
I'm confident that I've used the right word, so no requirement to check the book of words!
PS. Just noticed that you've removed your post. Is that a retreat?
I'm confident that I've used the right word, so no requirement to check the book of words!
PS. Just noticed that you've removed your post. Is that a retreat?
Hansard from last night released. Happy reading!
ParlInfo - Economics Legislation Committee : 18/03/2014 : Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014
ParlInfo - Economics Legislation Committee : 18/03/2014 : Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve,
I watched the other night and I reckon you did an amazing job on your own considering some of the complete tossers who were asking questions. Well done in not rising to some of the baits that were thrown at you.
You gave them FACTS and not platitudes which was blatantly obvious from others and now if they can be bothered to check the truth wont be that hard to find.
Between you and AIPA, succinct, fact based and well considered submissions were made and the outcome will be interesting. I sense some have already made up their minds and are now seeking to justify it but there you go. Hopefully some will listen to the actual evidence.
The travelling public owe you a lot for trying to expose this lot for what they are doing.
(I am not involved in aviation or any company so have no interest beyond slf and commercial ethics)
I watched the other night and I reckon you did an amazing job on your own considering some of the complete tossers who were asking questions. Well done in not rising to some of the baits that were thrown at you.
You gave them FACTS and not platitudes which was blatantly obvious from others and now if they can be bothered to check the truth wont be that hard to find.
Between you and AIPA, succinct, fact based and well considered submissions were made and the outcome will be interesting. I sense some have already made up their minds and are now seeking to justify it but there you go. Hopefully some will listen to the actual evidence.
The travelling public owe you a lot for trying to expose this lot for what they are doing.
(I am not involved in aviation or any company so have no interest beyond slf and commercial ethics)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thnx for the support guys. I find answering them very simple. You see every Politician expects you to be part of the same very big game they are in and the last thing the expect is a straight answer to a question. It baffles them.
They don't know how to deal with people like me.
They don't know how to deal with people like me.
They don't know how to deal with people like me.
Having said that:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following is a copy from last Fridays Hansard.
"Senator XENOPHON: I am sorry, we are running out of time. Could you take on notice how much it costs for each of those aircraft to be sitting on the ground pending regulatory approval?
Ms Hrdlicka : I have the answer now. We have made an investment in Jetstar Hong Kong, a fixed investment, with the *FIRST* tranche being $33 million. Jetstar Hong Kong has the full liability for the nine aircraft that have been ordered for Jetstar Hong Kong. The liability is Jetstar Hong Kong's; we are an investor, and we have provided our one-third investment."
(* my emphasis)
I have two issues with JH's response.
JH stated that the FIRST tranche (investment) was $33 million.
Has there been any subsequent investment? When is the next tranche?
The second issue is JH & AJ seem to be distancing themselves from the accountability of establishing the Jetstar Hong Kong business model.
"We are an investor, and we have provided our one third investment" JH
This seems to be a distant approach to that advocated at the launch of Jetstar Hong Kong per the following quotes
"Establishing Jetstar Hong Kong in the heart of Asia and the doorstep of mainland China is a huge opportunity to continue the successful expansion of the Jetstar brand in this region" AJ 26.3.12
"The successful low cost model of Jetstar" AJ 26.3.12
"Jetstar Hong Kong will maximise the synergies by combining the Jetstar Group resources including brand management, commercial management, safety, aircraft Maintanence and IT systems" AJ 26.3.12
"This is a unique opportunity for Jetstar to capitalise on the enormous potential of the greater Chinese market............using a model that we know delivers for our customers and shareholders" Bruce Buchanan 26.3.12
Its a little more than a one third hands off investment. You guys are running the show (or lack thereof) and its your and Boston Consultings xxxx up.
MC
"Senator XENOPHON: I am sorry, we are running out of time. Could you take on notice how much it costs for each of those aircraft to be sitting on the ground pending regulatory approval?
Ms Hrdlicka : I have the answer now. We have made an investment in Jetstar Hong Kong, a fixed investment, with the *FIRST* tranche being $33 million. Jetstar Hong Kong has the full liability for the nine aircraft that have been ordered for Jetstar Hong Kong. The liability is Jetstar Hong Kong's; we are an investor, and we have provided our one-third investment."
(* my emphasis)
I have two issues with JH's response.
JH stated that the FIRST tranche (investment) was $33 million.
Has there been any subsequent investment? When is the next tranche?
The second issue is JH & AJ seem to be distancing themselves from the accountability of establishing the Jetstar Hong Kong business model.
"We are an investor, and we have provided our one third investment" JH
This seems to be a distant approach to that advocated at the launch of Jetstar Hong Kong per the following quotes
"Establishing Jetstar Hong Kong in the heart of Asia and the doorstep of mainland China is a huge opportunity to continue the successful expansion of the Jetstar brand in this region" AJ 26.3.12
"The successful low cost model of Jetstar" AJ 26.3.12
"Jetstar Hong Kong will maximise the synergies by combining the Jetstar Group resources including brand management, commercial management, safety, aircraft Maintanence and IT systems" AJ 26.3.12
"This is a unique opportunity for Jetstar to capitalise on the enormous potential of the greater Chinese market............using a model that we know delivers for our customers and shareholders" Bruce Buchanan 26.3.12
Its a little more than a one third hands off investment. You guys are running the show (or lack thereof) and its your and Boston Consultings xxxx up.
MC
MC:
I can't copy the Hansard (I've tried) but a number of times it has been said 'A _minority_ investor in J* HKG'.
That being the case, who is the MAJORITY investor?
In other words, who is actually paying the bill??
PS: In awe of your cut and paste ability..
I can't copy the Hansard (I've tried) but a number of times it has been said 'A _minority_ investor in J* HKG'.
That being the case, who is the MAJORITY investor?
In other words, who is actually paying the bill??
PS: In awe of your cut and paste ability..