MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
Camel Squadron I always find your submissions refreshingly facile.
Your logic equates the potential revenue from additional (often unsold) J class seats to the actual, rising costs of fuel. By that logic you could ignore every other legacy cost as well since you claim additional, unproven revenue will more than offset it, too.
Further, by your logic, QF would be well advised to keep its current 747 fleet flying-indeed add more cheap airframes. That would have to be better than paying expensive lease costs on A380s
Rather than employ so many consultants perhaps it is time for Qantas to instead become the consultants to the rest of the industry: CamelSquadron can make millions in extra revenue showing those other guys the error of their (profitable) ways.
Your logic equates the potential revenue from additional (often unsold) J class seats to the actual, rising costs of fuel. By that logic you could ignore every other legacy cost as well since you claim additional, unproven revenue will more than offset it, too.
Further, by your logic, QF would be well advised to keep its current 747 fleet flying-indeed add more cheap airframes. That would have to be better than paying expensive lease costs on A380s
Rather than employ so many consultants perhaps it is time for Qantas to instead become the consultants to the rest of the industry: CamelSquadron can make millions in extra revenue showing those other guys the error of their (profitable) ways.
Keg wrote, in 4202:
" Firstly, any RIN from the 744 will likely create a maximum of about five subsequent training pathways.... Perhaps less depending on who goes where in subsequent fleets. If we allow $50K a go, that's $250K. Add on the CR component for the S/O that is going to get the chop and you're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of $300K. I'll be generous and allow &350K. One year pay for a 744 driver is probably circa $300K. So financially, it's a line ball call as to whether Qantas is better off dealing with the training costs or offering any more than $350K. They're certainly not going to offer $600K which is roughly two years pay. "
Let's have a deeper look at the assumptions here:
A 747 captain displaces a 330 captain. The course takes four months, during which he is paid $100,000 plus two weeks vacation and super, so more like $120,000. The instructor and simulator time likely eats up another $30,000 for a total of $150,000.
The 330 captain he displaces bids A380 F/O (the next highest paying job), with a similar result. Call it $140,000
The displaced A380 F/O displaces either a 747 or 330 F/O. Same assumptions, the wages are maybe $90,000 + shared training of $30,000 = $120,000
So thats $410,000 so far. Next come two rounds of S/O shuffle at a minimum of $80,000 each, followed by a CR of an S/O with seven years service, which is 23 weeks pay...say $50,000.
Add the later cost of another cost of $60,000 when you re-hire the junior S/O down the road, plus his lifetime bitterness.
My napkin says the whole thing amounts to over $620,000 now and another $60,000 later. And an enormous amount of effort.
Anyway...They have painted themselves into a corner over the years because of stupid ideology: hiring like crazy for one venture while carrying more and more surplus crews elsewhere.
" Firstly, any RIN from the 744 will likely create a maximum of about five subsequent training pathways.... Perhaps less depending on who goes where in subsequent fleets. If we allow $50K a go, that's $250K. Add on the CR component for the S/O that is going to get the chop and you're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of $300K. I'll be generous and allow &350K. One year pay for a 744 driver is probably circa $300K. So financially, it's a line ball call as to whether Qantas is better off dealing with the training costs or offering any more than $350K. They're certainly not going to offer $600K which is roughly two years pay. "
Let's have a deeper look at the assumptions here:
A 747 captain displaces a 330 captain. The course takes four months, during which he is paid $100,000 plus two weeks vacation and super, so more like $120,000. The instructor and simulator time likely eats up another $30,000 for a total of $150,000.
The 330 captain he displaces bids A380 F/O (the next highest paying job), with a similar result. Call it $140,000
The displaced A380 F/O displaces either a 747 or 330 F/O. Same assumptions, the wages are maybe $90,000 + shared training of $30,000 = $120,000
So thats $410,000 so far. Next come two rounds of S/O shuffle at a minimum of $80,000 each, followed by a CR of an S/O with seven years service, which is 23 weeks pay...say $50,000.
Add the later cost of another cost of $60,000 when you re-hire the junior S/O down the road, plus his lifetime bitterness.
My napkin says the whole thing amounts to over $620,000 now and another $60,000 later. And an enormous amount of effort.
Anyway...They have painted themselves into a corner over the years because of stupid ideology: hiring like crazy for one venture while carrying more and more surplus crews elsewhere.
Qantas just issued $300m of bonds at 7.75%. Virgin announce sale and lease back of HQ.
The sale and leaseback of the head office makes sense. There is not a lot of point in an airline having its capital tied up in a building. Most ASX200 companies do not own their head offices for the same reason; it is not their core business.
What are the CCQ A330 to A380? I found Airbus say A380 to A330 is 12 days.
There would be some significant expense initially for guys ex Boeing crew, but as it cascades down between the busses, the retraining cost could be acceptable?
The sims and sim staff are there anyway, so that is pretty much a fixed cost regardless. Then when line training, it's revenue generating.
Also there is only a RIN on 744 and 767, so those who get bumped from the A380 do not get to choose to bump someone else, etc etc. They end up in limbo land it appears.
I think some of the figures being quoted about training costs are highly exaggerated.
There would be some significant expense initially for guys ex Boeing crew, but as it cascades down between the busses, the retraining cost could be acceptable?
The sims and sim staff are there anyway, so that is pretty much a fixed cost regardless. Then when line training, it's revenue generating.
Also there is only a RIN on 744 and 767, so those who get bumped from the A380 do not get to choose to bump someone else, etc etc. They end up in limbo land it appears.
I think some of the figures being quoted about training costs are highly exaggerated.
Limbo land? You are joking right? Seniority cascades downwards, hence the discussion about resulting training costs.
My estimates may be out regarding variable costs of sim training, but not by much: they are currently training extra trainers at great cost for the expected rush. Also, simulator time is costed internally...nothing is for free. And they will likely have to cancel many commercial slots from which they would otherwise generate revenue. Also, fixed costs have to be assigned somewhere-they do not exist in a vacuum, so this training needs to be costed there as well.
Oh...airbus may quote 12 days...good luck with that. At QF the first two weeks are spent in the classroom, then fixed base takes another month, then 12 sims in 36 days minimum, etc etc.
Revenue generating line training...I will grant you that, in the final month, but there are also additional costs with safety F/Os, check pilots, etc. and often line crews get displaced for extra costs incurred as well.
My estimates may be out regarding variable costs of sim training, but not by much: they are currently training extra trainers at great cost for the expected rush. Also, simulator time is costed internally...nothing is for free. And they will likely have to cancel many commercial slots from which they would otherwise generate revenue. Also, fixed costs have to be assigned somewhere-they do not exist in a vacuum, so this training needs to be costed there as well.
Oh...airbus may quote 12 days...good luck with that. At QF the first two weeks are spent in the classroom, then fixed base takes another month, then 12 sims in 36 days minimum, etc etc.
Revenue generating line training...I will grant you that, in the final month, but there are also additional costs with safety F/Os, check pilots, etc. and often line crews get displaced for extra costs incurred as well.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: WA
Age: 71
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's have a deeper look at the assumptions here:
A 747 captain displaces a 330 captain. The course takes four months, during which he is paid $100,000 plus two weeks vacation and super, so more like $120,000. The instructor and simulator time likely eats up another $30,000 for a total of $150,000.
The 330 captain he displaces bids A380 F/O (the next highest paying job), with a similar result. Call it $140,000
The displaced A380 F/O displaces either a 747 or 330 F/O. Same assumptions, the wages are maybe $90,000 + shared training of $30,000 = $120,000
So thats $410,000 so far. Next come two rounds of S/O shuffle at a minimum of $80,000 each, followed by a CR of an S/O with seven years service, which is 23 weeks pay...say $50,000.
Add the later cost of another cost of $60,000 when you re-hire the junior S/O down the road, plus his lifetime bitterness.
My napkin says the whole thing amounts to over $620,000 now and another $60,000 later. And an enormous amount of effort.
A 747 captain displaces a 330 captain. The course takes four months, during which he is paid $100,000 plus two weeks vacation and super, so more like $120,000. The instructor and simulator time likely eats up another $30,000 for a total of $150,000.
The 330 captain he displaces bids A380 F/O (the next highest paying job), with a similar result. Call it $140,000
The displaced A380 F/O displaces either a 747 or 330 F/O. Same assumptions, the wages are maybe $90,000 + shared training of $30,000 = $120,000
So thats $410,000 so far. Next come two rounds of S/O shuffle at a minimum of $80,000 each, followed by a CR of an S/O with seven years service, which is 23 weeks pay...say $50,000.
Add the later cost of another cost of $60,000 when you re-hire the junior S/O down the road, plus his lifetime bitterness.
My napkin says the whole thing amounts to over $620,000 now and another $60,000 later. And an enormous amount of effort.
)
Nunc est bibendum
My estimates may be out regarding variable costs of sim training, but not by much: they are currently training extra trainers at great cost for the expected rush. Also, simulator time is costed internally...nothing is for free. And they will likely have to cancel many commercial slots from which they would otherwise generate revenue. Also, fixed costs have to be assigned somewhere-they do not exist in a vacuum, so this training needs to be costed there as well.
It doesn't include pilot pay of those undergoing the training but they're not unproductive for the entire time. In terms of total costs, they're paying those pilots anyway whether training or not.
So perhaps you're right austral and the saving is greater but you're forgetting that they still need more A330 drivers anyway so the trickle down may not be as great and they're paying 'someone' to train anyway. It's just someone being demoted rather than someone being promoted.
Last edited by Keg; 13th May 2014 at 02:36. Reason: Added for clarification
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Couldn't agree more - but the 744s were never going to fly forever!"
Yes agree. I was only pointing out that you need to consider more than just fuel costs and its not the slam dunk that some think it is.
Yes agree. I was only pointing out that you need to consider more than just fuel costs and its not the slam dunk that some think it is.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True CamelSquadron, I agree it's not a slam dunk - more of an own goal though (couldn't resist) when every other competitor is running LH twin-engine aircraft. Somewhere all these other airlines have found the capital to invest (and replace older aircraft), it just widens the cost gap even more.
Dixon bet the house on the 787 - I get it, there was just no plan B for when it all went wrong. Somewhere in QCC there's probably an extremely good business case for the 787 in mainline colours gathering dust (if it survived the move) - there would have to be for such a huge planned expenditure.
On a side note, the 744s have their place - Jo'burg/Santiago, you can't tell me South African/LAN have a better product.. Anyway, it's all in the past now, just thought I'd run some numbers on here so that the phrase "fuel savings" that gets thrown around actually has some figures behind it.
Anyone else (Keg, blueloo et al.?) have any more examples of missed opportunities?
Dixon bet the house on the 787 - I get it, there was just no plan B for when it all went wrong. Somewhere in QCC there's probably an extremely good business case for the 787 in mainline colours gathering dust (if it survived the move) - there would have to be for such a huge planned expenditure.
On a side note, the 744s have their place - Jo'burg/Santiago, you can't tell me South African/LAN have a better product.. Anyway, it's all in the past now, just thought I'd run some numbers on here so that the phrase "fuel savings" that gets thrown around actually has some figures behind it.
Anyone else (Keg, blueloo et al.?) have any more examples of missed opportunities?
Thanks Keg for the update. I neglected to consider that a quarter of the course is revenue producing, so my wage cost numbers are perhaps 25% high.
Wages get paid anyway, but for work done...time spent on a course is unproductive. In any event, the numbers that I hear being muttered by haunted-looking junior pilots suggest that mainline's problem is far larger than can be solved with 100 VRs. The returning (or not) pilots are, I guess, the fly in the ointment.
Back to calculating the earliest day that I can retire from this toxic dump, VR or not....
Wages get paid anyway, but for work done...time spent on a course is unproductive. In any event, the numbers that I hear being muttered by haunted-looking junior pilots suggest that mainline's problem is far larger than can be solved with 100 VRs. The returning (or not) pilots are, I guess, the fly in the ointment.
Back to calculating the earliest day that I can retire from this toxic dump, VR or not....
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole retraining and VR THING SOUNDS LIKE IT COULD BANKRUPT THE AIRLINE.
A full restructure and re- applying for jobs is a possibility. Would they try to raise money @ 7% knowing the airline will be sold or taken over without recourse. New airline ...
Worrying times.
A full restructure and re- applying for jobs is a possibility. Would they try to raise money @ 7% knowing the airline will be sold or taken over without recourse. New airline ...
Worrying times.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas pilots face redundancy for first time in 40 years!
looks like we'll know the VR offer fairly soon anyway
Qantas will make some of its pilots redundant for the first time more than 40 years as part of a broader plan to cut 5000 jobs as the ailing carrier looks to return to profitability.
The airline on Tuesday asked captains and first officers of its ageing 767 and 747 aircraft for voluntary redundancy applications.
Qantas is understood to be seeking less than 100 redundancies among the 550 767 and 747 pilots in its workforce. Overall, the airline has around 2000 pilots in its mainline operations.
All of its 767s will exit the fleet by the first quarter of 2015 and the airline will retire six of its remaining 15 747s by the first half of 2016.
Qantas has long had an excess of pilots but it has dealt with it by offering leave without pay which allowed them to work for other airlines, including Jetstar.
But in an internal memo on Tuesday, Chief Pilot Dick Tobiano told pilots that plans to accelerate the retirement of 767s and 747s combined with the end of a number of leave without pay periods had left the airline with a pilot surplus it would be unable to manage.
Australian and International Pilots Association president Nathan Safe said Qantas had never offered voluntary redundancies for pilots in its 93 year history and the only instance of compulsory redundancies was more than 40 years ago.
There is no proscribed redundancy package in the union agreement, so Mr Safe said he would be negotiating with the company about the offer.
The airline on Tuesday asked captains and first officers of its ageing 767 and 747 aircraft for voluntary redundancy applications.
Qantas is understood to be seeking less than 100 redundancies among the 550 767 and 747 pilots in its workforce. Overall, the airline has around 2000 pilots in its mainline operations.
All of its 767s will exit the fleet by the first quarter of 2015 and the airline will retire six of its remaining 15 747s by the first half of 2016.
Qantas has long had an excess of pilots but it has dealt with it by offering leave without pay which allowed them to work for other airlines, including Jetstar.
But in an internal memo on Tuesday, Chief Pilot Dick Tobiano told pilots that plans to accelerate the retirement of 767s and 747s combined with the end of a number of leave without pay periods had left the airline with a pilot surplus it would be unable to manage.
Australian and International Pilots Association president Nathan Safe said Qantas had never offered voluntary redundancies for pilots in its 93 year history and the only instance of compulsory redundancies was more than 40 years ago.
There is no proscribed redundancy package in the union agreement, so Mr Safe said he would be negotiating with the company about the offer.
@Keg Which memo? can't see it on qffc.com - type specific perhaps?
or you talking about the old guys falling over in the bath?
edit: nevermind, on the blog i see
or you talking about the old guys falling over in the bath?
edit: nevermind, on the blog i see
can someone post a copy of the memo? where does the figure 100 come from in the SMH article?
Pretty bloody sad that a rubbish paper like the SMH can see the details, but their own employees can't.
Pretty bloody sad that a rubbish paper like the SMH can see the details, but their own employees can't.
Limbo land? You are joking right? Seniority cascades downwards, hence the discussion about resulting training costs.
No I'm not joking. Where in the LHWD does it detail what happens to a displaced pilot? To save you looking, the answer is nowhere!
In the last 767 RIN, the Company took two paths with displacement. A 767 FO was displaced and demoted. An A330 FO was displaced and stayed. There were no advertised vacancies for either but obviously the A330 could/would accommodate the extra.
Now what happens if an A380 FO is displaced by a 767 CPT. Will the A380 FO stay? or will they be given an A330 FO position (they can't displace an A330 FO as the A380 FO is not on a named RIN)? What if there is no capacity to take extra on the A330 either?
Will this trigger an A380 FO RIN? Is that how it's defined in the LHWD?
Will they be demoted? Can they be demoted if there remains a more junior FO on the A330? Application of seniority says "demotion or termination if redundancies occur". Does this mean VR or CR? If it means CR and there is no CR, does that mean demotion out of seniority is possible?
If the A380 FO is demoted, does he get A380 SO or A330 SO? Where does it say? What if there are no vacancies?
That is why I think there is a lot of "limbo land" for those that will be displaced.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas drops pilots, refuses to counter rumours
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...unter-rumours/
When a company stops defending itself from allegations that its finances have seriously deteriorated, as has Qantas today, it is reasonable to assume that the claims have some substance.
Keep this situation in context with the long anticipated announcement this afternoon of voluntary but if it sees fit forced redundancies among its 767 and 747 pilots.
Rewind one day. Yesterday Tom Elliott on Radio 3AW broadcast what on the face of it was a damaging report, based on an unidentified document that purported that Qantas was in significant financial trouble.
The report however did not mention that response if any Qantas had made in reply to the substance of the Elliott report which can found here.
As it turns out today, 3AW says that it did, as one would expect, put these and other matters to Qantas but received what sounded like a remarkably weak, imprecise and evasive response.
Which was also Plane Talking’s experience when it sought a response to the 3AW report much earlier today.
Since then Tom Elliott has made two reports in quick succession concerning the Qantas situation, one interviewing Fairfax business columnist Elizabeth Knight, and the second former Qantas chief economist Tony Webber, both of which can be found on the 3AW web site.
This is the iSentia (formerly Media Monitors) summary of both stories.
13/05/2014 16:09 3AW Drive Tom Elliott 4:45
Elliott discusses whether Qantas is in a worse financial situation than what is commonly understood. He mentions a document titled liquidity challenge which spoke about Qantas’ debt and the potential sale of its frequent flyer program. Fairfax business columnist Liz Knight says that the document appears genuine and that it suggests that Qantas is concerned about a further downgrade in its debt. Qantas currently has a junk rating.
Knight says that it appears from the document that it is not a question of whether Qantas will sell its frequent flyer program but when. Knight talks about the possibility of further redundancies at Qantas. She says that there is information to suggest that by the end of the week, Qantas will have offered pilots a redundancy package. She says that there are too many pilots on their books. Knight says that the heart and sole of Qantas is its well-trained pilot workforce.
13/05/2014 16:14 3AW Drive Tom Elliott 5:35
Interview with Tony Webber, associate professor at the University of Sydney Business School and former Qantas chief economist.
Webber comments on a document titled liquidity challenge which speaks about Qantas’ debt and the potential sale of its frequent flyer program.
Webber says that Qantas clearly has a greater liquidity issue than most analysts expected. He says that their revenue and yields are lower than expected. Webber does not believe the selling off of terminals or the frequent flyer program would have any impact on consumers. He says that Qantas’ international business has been in decline for over a decade. He says that over the past 12 months, the biggest contributor to the excess supply in Qantas’ market is their own partner, Emirates. Webber says that there is no possible way that Qantas’ board and senior management can hold their positions for much longer.
He believes that Qantas’ credit rating might be brought down another level. Elliott adds that 3AW has spoken to Qantas a number of times off-air and asked them to address the concerns. Elliott says that Qantas has replied that they think the market is fully informed and that they do not believe the document which Elliott has obtained is a Qantas document.
Some comments:
The value of the Qantas frequent flyer program depends on the perceived strength of the Qantas brand.
It is the often expressed view of this observer that the current Qantas management has so damaged the company that it might not find the expected value in the full or partial sale of the loyalty program.
Qantas group CEO Alan Joyce and chair Leigh Clifford have failed the interests of the company’s shareholders, employees and customers, none of the promised benefits of the Jetstar franchise have materialised, the Emirates partnership is a negative for Qantas, not Emirates, which has benefited with increased Australian premium travel yields and market share at the apparent expense of Qantas.
Since the late February review of Qantas that coincided with a disgraceful first half loss announcement, and followed its failed efforts to get an unsecured $3 billion loan from the Abbott government, and the loss of its investment grade ratings on unsecured debt, Joyce appear to lose some authority in the company.
The expansion of the Jetstar franchise based in Singapore was put on hold, and the costly but botched division of Qantas into independently managed international and domestic brands was put down, allegedly for the time being.
It is abundantly obvious that the Clifford/Joyce management of Qantas will not solve any of Qantas’s problems. Given the inability or incapacity of the company to defend its record over the past five years, those problems may well be much more serious than previously understood.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...unter-rumours/
When a company stops defending itself from allegations that its finances have seriously deteriorated, as has Qantas today, it is reasonable to assume that the claims have some substance.
Keep this situation in context with the long anticipated announcement this afternoon of voluntary but if it sees fit forced redundancies among its 767 and 747 pilots.
Rewind one day. Yesterday Tom Elliott on Radio 3AW broadcast what on the face of it was a damaging report, based on an unidentified document that purported that Qantas was in significant financial trouble.
The report however did not mention that response if any Qantas had made in reply to the substance of the Elliott report which can found here.
As it turns out today, 3AW says that it did, as one would expect, put these and other matters to Qantas but received what sounded like a remarkably weak, imprecise and evasive response.
Which was also Plane Talking’s experience when it sought a response to the 3AW report much earlier today.
Since then Tom Elliott has made two reports in quick succession concerning the Qantas situation, one interviewing Fairfax business columnist Elizabeth Knight, and the second former Qantas chief economist Tony Webber, both of which can be found on the 3AW web site.
This is the iSentia (formerly Media Monitors) summary of both stories.
13/05/2014 16:09 3AW Drive Tom Elliott 4:45
Elliott discusses whether Qantas is in a worse financial situation than what is commonly understood. He mentions a document titled liquidity challenge which spoke about Qantas’ debt and the potential sale of its frequent flyer program. Fairfax business columnist Liz Knight says that the document appears genuine and that it suggests that Qantas is concerned about a further downgrade in its debt. Qantas currently has a junk rating.
Knight says that it appears from the document that it is not a question of whether Qantas will sell its frequent flyer program but when. Knight talks about the possibility of further redundancies at Qantas. She says that there is information to suggest that by the end of the week, Qantas will have offered pilots a redundancy package. She says that there are too many pilots on their books. Knight says that the heart and sole of Qantas is its well-trained pilot workforce.
13/05/2014 16:14 3AW Drive Tom Elliott 5:35
Interview with Tony Webber, associate professor at the University of Sydney Business School and former Qantas chief economist.
Webber comments on a document titled liquidity challenge which speaks about Qantas’ debt and the potential sale of its frequent flyer program.
Webber says that Qantas clearly has a greater liquidity issue than most analysts expected. He says that their revenue and yields are lower than expected. Webber does not believe the selling off of terminals or the frequent flyer program would have any impact on consumers. He says that Qantas’ international business has been in decline for over a decade. He says that over the past 12 months, the biggest contributor to the excess supply in Qantas’ market is their own partner, Emirates. Webber says that there is no possible way that Qantas’ board and senior management can hold their positions for much longer.
He believes that Qantas’ credit rating might be brought down another level. Elliott adds that 3AW has spoken to Qantas a number of times off-air and asked them to address the concerns. Elliott says that Qantas has replied that they think the market is fully informed and that they do not believe the document which Elliott has obtained is a Qantas document.
Some comments:
The value of the Qantas frequent flyer program depends on the perceived strength of the Qantas brand.
It is the often expressed view of this observer that the current Qantas management has so damaged the company that it might not find the expected value in the full or partial sale of the loyalty program.
Qantas group CEO Alan Joyce and chair Leigh Clifford have failed the interests of the company’s shareholders, employees and customers, none of the promised benefits of the Jetstar franchise have materialised, the Emirates partnership is a negative for Qantas, not Emirates, which has benefited with increased Australian premium travel yields and market share at the apparent expense of Qantas.
Since the late February review of Qantas that coincided with a disgraceful first half loss announcement, and followed its failed efforts to get an unsecured $3 billion loan from the Abbott government, and the loss of its investment grade ratings on unsecured debt, Joyce appear to lose some authority in the company.
The expansion of the Jetstar franchise based in Singapore was put on hold, and the costly but botched division of Qantas into independently managed international and domestic brands was put down, allegedly for the time being.
It is abundantly obvious that the Clifford/Joyce management of Qantas will not solve any of Qantas’s problems. Given the inability or incapacity of the company to defend its record over the past five years, those problems may well be much more serious than previously understood.
Last edited by TIMA9X; 13th May 2014 at 08:51.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: here and there
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cloudsurfng:
can someone post a copy of the memo?
can someone post a copy of the memo?
If you aren't, a copy of the internal document is not for your eyes, no matter how important you may think you are.
ramius
thanks for your reply moron. A search of QFFC shows up nothing, and there is nothing at the co email address, or on the iPad.
maybe I'm lucky i haven't seen it. on the 73 we get used to being considered 'not part of the company' by you long haul types anyway
thanks for your reply moron. A search of QFFC shows up nothing, and there is nothing at the co email address, or on the iPad.
maybe I'm lucky i haven't seen it. on the 73 we get used to being considered 'not part of the company' by you long haul types anyway
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: here and there
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it seems maggot could find it, and judging by his nickname he's on the 737, but doesn't have the same LH/SH issues that you appear to have. It seems he doesn't have to revert to name-calling.
There is another forum that is not open to everyone that would be far more appropriate than here to ask your question. It is beyond belief that you would come to pprune and ask somebody to reproduce a company document in an open forum, as opposed to Qrewroom.
There is another forum that is not open to everyone that would be far more appropriate than here to ask your question. It is beyond belief that you would come to pprune and ask somebody to reproduce a company document in an open forum, as opposed to Qrewroom.