Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

MERGED: Alan's still not happy......

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

MERGED: Alan's still not happy......

Old 27th Dec 2013, 03:59
  #1321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,282
Who wrote the fin review article??
Jack Ranga is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 04:16
  #1322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 43
Posts: 104
Who wrote the fin review article??
Joe Aston wrote the article.
MELKBQF is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 08:10
  #1323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 102
Pilot wages within 5%...........absolute total bollocks!
A virgin longhaul 777 FO is on around $156k a year, my mates who are 400 or 380 FO's earn a hell of a lot more than that and I mean a lot more!
bangbounceboeing is online now  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 08:37
  #1324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lhr - Syd - Lax
Posts: 356
bbb,

So a Virgin E-jet F/O earns $150k .... or is JB incorrect ...

or ..

wait ..

Maybe you have taken him out of context ....


sigh ...

N
noip is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 08:56
  #1325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 372
Pilot wages within 5%...........absolute total bollocks!
A virgin longhaul 777 FO is on around $156k a year, my mates who are 400 or 380 FO's earn a hell of a lot more than that and I mean a lot more!
I am talking about DOMESTIC!

So is Borghetti lying:

VIRGIN Australia chief executive John Borghetti has rejected claims the airline's pilots, engineers and ground crew are paid substantially less than those at Qantas Airways.
Mr Borghetti says there was a 5 per cent difference between the salary of a Boeing 737 pilot flying a Virgin Australia aircraft and an identical pilot flying the same aircraft for Qantas.
The difference was similar for ground staff, while aircraft engineers at Virgin were paid more than those at Qantas, Mr Borghetti said.
"We don't pay our pilots half of the Qantas rates," Mr Borghetti said after an Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce lunch in Sydney today.
"We do pay our people well. Quite frankly, if we didn't and we only paid them half the price do you think they'd stay?"
Qantas, currently in enterprise bargaining negotiations with ground crew, pilots and engineers, has previously claimed unions representing those workers had accepted new workplace agreements with Virgin that had lower wages and conditions than what Qantas was offering.
"The TWU (Transport Workers Union) has negotiated a new deal with Virgin which is 12 per cent lower than Qantas rates," Qantas group executive government and corporate affairs Olivia Wirth said on October 6.
Mr Borghetti said Virgin moved quickly to add capacity, rebook passengers and keep Australians flying when Qantas decided to ground its fleet over the weekend as part of an industrial dispute with unions.
The Virgin boss said the airline carried about 30,000 disrupted passengers and had a several hundred per cent increase in foot traffic through its airport lounges, exposing the airline's offering to many who normally flew Qantas.
"We've never seen such volumes," Mr Borghetti said.
"We hoping that a lot of those customers will come and visit us again."
He added that the federal government was "nothing but really supportive" of Virgin's efforts, particularly with relaxing curfews at airports or allowing pilots on its Pacific Blue fleet to operate on domestic routes.
Separately, Mr Borghetti said the airline would finish refitting the interiors of its Boeing 737 fleet by the end of the year.
This would allow Virgin to extend its business class offering to the so-called golden triangle between Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney from January 18, 2012.
Currently, these seats are available on east-west flights to Perth from Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.
The Melbourne-Sydney route was the fourth-busiest city pair in the world and one that was crying out for more competition for corporate travellers, Mr Borghetti said.
The airline said at its full year results presentation in August that 13 per cent of its revenue now came from corporate customers, with the aim to grow the figure to 20 per cent over the next two years.
"I'm very happy with the way it's heading," Mr Borghetti said.
Virgin closed steady at 37 cents.
I also understand that the QF DOMESTIC agreement contains greater efficiency terms than the Virgin agreement that effectively more than negates any pay rate differential.
The The is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 09:37
  #1326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 53
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by The The
It is the old Hyundai v Mercedes argument. Offer a quality product, highly regarded and prestigious with the latest innovations and efficient production; and you can charge a substantial premium with high profitability (do you think if Hyundai slashed prices 20% that it would have any effect on Mercedes sales? It would not even boost Hyundai's sales enough to cover the loss). There is an alternative to volume based sales, QF management just can't see it. Borghetti sees it loud and clear.
Nothing of the sort. The premium product in this case is available only to a few, the rest of us travel down the back. Unless of course you are suggesting that economy travellers would pay a "substantial premium" for economy travel. Which actual behaviour suggests many won't.

Whereas a Merc or Hyundai is a choice for a maximum of a few people comprising a regular unit (the family) the aircraft has to cater for a much wider audience. If you believe otherwise then consider why everyone isn't flying in private jets.

Qantas leverages the preference to fly with them by providing a higher end product. But there is a much harder marketplace to contend with than the old Qantas-Ansett duopoly. QF has to get much smarter in everyday business practices in order to get their cost base to a point where people are prepared to pay the premium to cover the additional costs. And bear in mind that also means competing with Singapore Airlines and Emirates.

The answer does not lie in the wages of individual staff. It lies in the total number of staff and equivalents.
Romulus is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 10:13
  #1327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 53
Posts: 628
Totally agree Ampclamp.

I would suggest there is well over $200M per annum of easily realisable savings to be had (IMHO).

There also needs to be a review of paygrades in management. When some junior managers earn well over $100K then there is a fundamental disconnect between salary and value.
Romulus is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 11:58
  #1328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
The evidence is against people paying more to fly, in fact the entire LCC movement is based on the fact people want to pay as little as possible. To go back to the duopoly days you'd be looking at $600 Syd-Mel type stuff as your regular fare. That's just not going to happen.
Romulus I know you are very focused on cost cutting but I think you are completely dismissing the Merc/Hyundai argument. Please don't.

The 51/49 market share need not return exactly to the $600 Mel to Syd days but adding just $10 a ticket will not drive any substantial number of customers away. The Qantas Group carried $50Mill pax last year. $10 a ticket would add $500Mill to their bottom line. We need sustainable airfares and it will only take a small increase to get there.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 14:54
  #1329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 53
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by fedsec
Romulus I know you are very focused on cost cutting but I think you are completely dismissing the Merc/Hyundai argument. Please don't.
Feel free to actually argue why not, it's a bit difficult to debate a faith based argument. I've given a fairly clear reason why Merc/Hyundai is not appropriate, if you want to go with the God, i.e. just believe, argument then we're not going to get anywhere.

And cost cutting is just one tool, and usually the last I choose. But what we are talking about is efficiency, not cost cutting. For instance, if you could add 45 aircraft without adding extra staff (or at least any significant numbers) then you're delivering enhanced efficiency. You build a capacity growth plan and all those overheads are dispersed over larger numbers.

But hey, feel free to keep making those assumptions.

Originally Posted by fedsec
The 51/49 market share need not return exactly to the $600 Mel to Syd days but adding just $10 a ticket will not drive any substantial number of customers away. The Qantas Group carried $50Mill pax last year. $10 a ticket would add $500Mill to their bottom line. We need sustainable airfares and it will only take a small increase to get there.
And this is based on... faith again I presume?

Just put prices up.

Yep, that's how easy it is...
Romulus is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 17:53
  #1330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 954
Yep, it is that simple.

I've proved i time and again. You do NOT lose business by putting prices up 10%.

I dont think it's the solution for QF, or relevant to the argument that gross/criminal incompetence throughout management levels at QF have destroyed the place over 10+ years, but having a good product is most certainly not affected by a 10% price hike.

Jetstar is another matter entirely. But even there you have masters of the $1 fare SYD-DPS (+ $20 muffin, $30 management incompetence levy and $125 oxygen fee).

Make no mistake, unless this bunch of lunatics partying with our cherished airline are removed immediately no price hike will make any difference at all, but once the place is operated properly that is exactly the type of strategy that should be used - and even trumpeted from the rooftops....
V-Jet is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 19:21
  #1331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,789
Feel free to actually argue why not, it's a bit difficult to debate a faith based argument. I've given a fairly clear reason why Merc/Hyundai is not appropriate, if you want to go with the God, i.e. just believe, argument then we're not going to get anywhere.
Sorry Romulus, I don't believe you have given a clear argument. I don't argue based on theories or god, I like to look at behavior and in the case of airlines, pax loads. I'll show you.

Nothing of the sort. The premium product in this case is available only to a few, the rest of us travel down the back. Unless of course you are suggesting that economy travellers would pay a "substantial premium" for economy travel. Which actual behaviour suggests many won't.
Your statement about actual behavior is not supported by any data. You just make a broad brush statement that essentially says people won't pay much more to travel. I say that they need not pay much more at all and use a $10 argument to show how the 50Mill pax who travel on Qantas (based on reported pax numbers from their monthly data) could generate $500Mill more income.

Of course neither of us are privy to the actual fare prices but I think it safe to make a couple of assumptions here as I show you some further figures. I assume Qantas are charging a little more than Jetstar and PAL on the same routes. If people didn't want to pay a tad more, why do you get figures like this -

Qantas Sept loads to/from Manila - 75.3% versus PAL 63.3%

Qantas Sept loads to/from Japan - 83.5% versus Jetstar 67.1%

I say that people are prepared to pay a little more. What evidence do you hold that supports your argument that people won't?

As for your focus on efficiencies I would have to agree. I've always said that Jetstar, Qantas and Qlnik Engineers should be working from the one smoko room helping each other during quiet times. They'd use one combined set of tooling, one management/support structure and eventually one wage agreement. Unfortunately Qantas think it more important to make sure these guys aren't allowed to talk to each other. I tell you the place is being run by fools.
ALAEA Fed Sec is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 20:31
  #1332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,319
blah blah blah

if they thought they could charge another $10 they would. just not the expense of the 65% thing

mr luxon said it best with this little backhander recently

Far from the picture painted by Qantas, Mr Luxon said Air NZ was a listed company that acted commercially and rationally at all times
waren9 is online now  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 22:32
  #1333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: All over the Planet
Posts: 779
As for your focus on efficiencies I would have to agree. I've always said that Jetstar, Qantas and Qlnik Engineers should be working from the one smoko room helping each other during quiet times. They'd use one combined set of tooling, one management/support structure and eventually one wage agreement.
What a sterling idea! Qantas Group Engineering and Mantainence Services here we come. This gem would literally save squillions, cost a lot less to run and certainly offer Ts and Cs that are inferior to those on offer. Could only be good for the financial well-being and survival of Qantas.
Ken Borough is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 22:46
  #1334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 297
Let's start by getting rid of the two of the three CEOs the two COOs and the three Chief Pilots and the HOFO. That would save millions. They don't do anything and cost a fortune.
busdriver007 is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2013, 23:43
  #1335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 197
Have you noticed the airline imploding whilst all the managers are away on leave?
Still running nicely, I wonder why?
Troo believer is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 00:59
  #1336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,199
Troo Believer.

Or......Management indicates they are carrying surplus pilots. However lots of mates I know can't take any annual leave. Too busy flying whilst the office dwellers are on leave.
Mstr Caution is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 01:57
  #1337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
Have you noticed the airline imploding whilst all the managers are away on leave?
Still running nicely, I wonder why?
No surprise, in my more than 40 years in the Industry (but not with QF at all) this is quite normal, things run much better over holiday periods and even on weekends.

Then the Managers return and try to justify their positions.
airsupport is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 02:03
  #1338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: All over the Planet
Posts: 779
Ever thought that things run so well because of the clever and careful managers, wherever they may sit? Don't try to tell me that OTP and everything else is more functional on week-ends and during holiday periods. Quite often when the sh!t hits the fans in 'out of hours' time, the phones from the workers to the managers run hot.
Ken Borough is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 02:08
  #1339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 73
Posts: 1,406
Ever thought that things run so well because of the clever and careful managers, wherever they may sit? Don't try to tell me that OTP and everything else is more functional on week-ends and during holiday periods. Quite often when the sh!t hits the fans in 'out of hours' time, the phones from the workers to the managers run hot.
You must be a Manager...............

That has never been my experience in more than 40 years, with many Airlines, and Worldwide.
airsupport is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2013, 02:20
  #1340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Bubble
Posts: 636
Worker: MR Manager, MR Manager, the planes broken and its delayed what do we do ?

MR Manager: Fix it son.

Worker: Thanks MR Manager, don't know how we could have made that decision without you.
600ft-lb is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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