MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And thus far, the evidence supports this expectation.
...but whether this is the result of a relatively new operation, lower standards or some other reason is a debate for someone else.
"NOBODY has been "forced" onto Jetstar."
Go to qantas.com.au and you'll be offered Jetstar flights as well when searching. Go to jetstar.com.au and you'll only get Jetstar flights.
Perhaps Jetstar don't want customers realising that when you add in a few extras (sometimes even not), Qantas is often cheaper.
How would you explain the QF load factors close to the mid 90's over the last week or so?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ..
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Va didn't exercise the $100mil loan was in effect a line of credit.
Still yes they are losing money but a lot less than qf even when you allow for scale. This is why qf have thrown their toys out.
They have about 18mths cash left at current rates and Va now have 3.5 years. Al wasn't expecting that.
Still yes they are losing money but a lot less than qf even when you allow for scale. This is why qf have thrown their toys out.
They have about 18mths cash left at current rates and Va now have 3.5 years. Al wasn't expecting that.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Romulus. I find no need to give a detailed response to your last post. Your arguments appear all to be based on rhetoric and nothing you have said is supported by facts.
You even go as far as to claim that Qantas planes aren't 100% full and should be if my theories were correct and nobody would fly Jetstar until the Qantas flights fill up. Get real mate, the flights leave at different times and anyone who has ever worked in Aviation knows you can't always run 100% full. If you can't do your own research to support your flawed arguments at least don't be silly with your responses.
The facts I put before you show that Qantas were a market leader over the direct competitor JAL. You can list as many other airlines as you like, Scoot, Air China, Alaskan and Alitalia, but they don't fly direct and would only fly a very small percentage of pax.
Now with Jetstar in that market, JAL are on top. Qantas are still holding their own but most of their flights have been discontinued and replaced by Jetstar services. Pax are now paying lower fares (less income) on aircraft that are about 10% less full. No airline can make money carrying loads as a LCC of 70%.
Qantas and their Board can't work out why they are losing money. I thought you would be able to.
You even go as far as to claim that Qantas planes aren't 100% full and should be if my theories were correct and nobody would fly Jetstar until the Qantas flights fill up. Get real mate, the flights leave at different times and anyone who has ever worked in Aviation knows you can't always run 100% full. If you can't do your own research to support your flawed arguments at least don't be silly with your responses.
The facts I put before you show that Qantas were a market leader over the direct competitor JAL. You can list as many other airlines as you like, Scoot, Air China, Alaskan and Alitalia, but they don't fly direct and would only fly a very small percentage of pax.
Now with Jetstar in that market, JAL are on top. Qantas are still holding their own but most of their flights have been discontinued and replaced by Jetstar services. Pax are now paying lower fares (less income) on aircraft that are about 10% less full. No airline can make money carrying loads as a LCC of 70%.
Qantas and their Board can't work out why they are losing money. I thought you would be able to.
Last edited by ALAEA Fed Sec; 29th Dec 2013 at 04:42.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not forget that just a few months ago Big Al was singing his own praises because of the amazing $6m profit. The (insert number here) pillar strategy was brilliant, happy days.
Whats changed? Nuthin. The books can be made to say what management want them to say.
This is an engineered crisis to achieve an outcome. Whether its changes to the QSA, changes to depreciation…whatever. And they will get it. My guess is around July 14. Then Al (if he's still around, lets hope not) will again announce how the (insert number here) pillar strategy is back on track and things are looking up again.
Whats changed? Nuthin. The books can be made to say what management want them to say.
This is an engineered crisis to achieve an outcome. Whether its changes to the QSA, changes to depreciation…whatever. And they will get it. My guess is around July 14. Then Al (if he's still around, lets hope not) will again announce how the (insert number here) pillar strategy is back on track and things are looking up again.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stinkfinger
Originally Posted by romulus
NOBODY has been "forced" onto Jetstar. People have chosen to go there.
Romulus, I call BS on that statement.
Romulus, I call BS on that statement.
Enter the orange rash, and now we only have the choice of one star, VA or Fiji Airways ( previously Air Pacific ), i.e. no more QF.
This Nadi route is one of many that appeared to have been gifted, i.e. destinations that are no longer served by an aeroplane with a white rat on a red tail with an Australian accent on the PA.
VA seem happy to take our money and provide a good product in comparison.
i.e. YOU DIDN'T FLY JETSTAR.
Yet from Fedsec's own figures plenty of people ARE choosing Jetstar.
And they are not being forced, just as you weren't.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alan's not happy......
Last week I was looking up flights Sydney to Queenstown on Qantas.com
It automatically sorts by "Direct Flights"...
First in the list was JQ... I had to scroll past 13 or 14 codeshares to find the QF flight, sitting right at the bottom.
Then I thought, "maybe they're all direct so they have been sorted by departure time?" ...
But no... There were non-direct codeshares sitting below JQ but above QF.
And the departure times were totally jumbled up.
It is totally ridiculous and pathetic that you can buy JQ fares on Qantas.com and not vice-versa.
And even when you are looking for a QF fare it is effectively hidden so you choose anything else but the QF one.
It automatically sorts by "Direct Flights"...
First in the list was JQ... I had to scroll past 13 or 14 codeshares to find the QF flight, sitting right at the bottom.
Then I thought, "maybe they're all direct so they have been sorted by departure time?" ...
But no... There were non-direct codeshares sitting below JQ but above QF.
And the departure times were totally jumbled up.
It is totally ridiculous and pathetic that you can buy JQ fares on Qantas.com and not vice-versa.
And even when you are looking for a QF fare it is effectively hidden so you choose anything else but the QF one.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by captcloudbuster
Originally Posted by romulus
NOBODY has been "forced" onto Jetstar. People have chosen to go there.
Equally when I check webjet you can go Jetstar or VA. I didn't notice an option for "goons with guns" forcing me to choose JQ...
Originally Posted by captcloudbuster
Qantas has resumed Sydney-Gold Coast flights today, four years after the airline handed over the route to low-cost sibling Jetstar.
Again, no goons with guns.
Just choice.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bankrunner
So what about those customers who want OOL to ADL, CHC, MEL (and any number of other routes previously operated by QF mainline), or an early morning flight DRW to BNE (QF673), or any morning flight DRW to ADL (QF669), or any flight at all DRW to SIN (QF355)?
The choice for those customers is JQ or the competition. QF isn't an option.
The choice for those customers is JQ or the competition. QF isn't an option.
Or maybe, just maybe, they drive efficiencies in mainline and go with that.
But that is a whole lot harder to do.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by blitzkrieger
Curious Romulus. As the only one here who appears to think QF management is doing a good job in a challenging environment, I have a few questions:
If management is doing such a great job, why is QF failing?
How do you explain the travelling public voting with their feet?
Explain VA.
If management is doing such a great job, why is QF failing?
How do you explain the travelling public voting with their feet?
Explain VA.
I don't think they are doing a good job. Equally I don't think they are doing as bad a job as many would like to think.
One thing I do find interesting is the attitude in this thread compared to that in the BA Jo'burg incident. Over there a flight crew wander over to the wrong "taxiway" and everyone has huge sympathy for what is a pretty basic bit of ground navigation that thousands of others have already undertaken. Yet somehow in a hostile and competitive environment Joyce and Co are expected to pull out a roadmap that pleases everyone and returns higher profits. Quite amusing.
The closest that Joyce and Co have to a roadmap is the methodologies undertaken elsewhere. Even flag carriers like BA, Air France and Lufthansa have between approximately 66%-75% of the personnel per aircraft. Why is that? And let's not even look at where LCCs and some of the US airlines are at.
And before you say it, no, they aren't falling out of the sky.
As for VA, well they've lost a bucket load and they've sucked up a huge amount of capital from their owners. What would you like me to explain about them?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I retired and had no desire to fly much any longer I asked her IF she flies domestically to please use Qantas where at all possible, NOT Jetstar or Virgin.
Why, well at the time it was because Qantas were iIMHO much safer as they were the ONLY ones to have LAMEs preflighting and handling all their flights.
However now QF Management have removed this it is no wonder everyone is abadoning Qantas in droves, now all are reduced to the lowest level I guess people just go for the cheapest option and hope for the best.
Why, well at the time it was because Qantas were iIMHO much safer as they were the ONLY ones to have LAMEs preflighting and handling all their flights.
However now QF Management have removed this it is no wonder everyone is abadoning Qantas in droves, now all are reduced to the lowest level I guess people just go for the cheapest option and hope for the best.
LAMEless tarmacs are used all over the world, planes are not colliding as a result of that.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet somehow in a hostile and competitive environment Joyce and Co are expected to pull out a roadmap that pleases everyone and returns higher profits.
We are constantly told that to attract the best talent we need to pay for it.
If you believe the dribble spouted out about how wonderful QF management is, AND based on the CEOs remuneration, QANTAS should be a gold mine, and he would be shi*ting gold nuggets from his arse.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fedsec
Sorry Romulus. I find no need to give a detailed response to your last post. Your arguments appear all to be based on rhetoric and nothing you have said is supported by facts.
Originally Posted by fedsec
You even go as far as to claim that Qantas planes aren't 100% full and should be if my theories were correct and nobody would fly Jetstar until the Qantas flights fill up. Get real mate, the flights leave at different times and anyone who has ever worked in Aviation knows you can't always run 100% full. If you can't do your own research to support your flawed arguments at least don't be silly with your responses.
Which contradicts your argument does it not?
Originally Posted by fedsec
The facts I put before you show that Qantas were a market leader over the direct competitor JAL. You can list as many other airlines as you like, Scoot, Air China, Alaskan and Alitalia, but they don't fly direct and would only fly a very small percentage of pax.
Now with Jetstar in that market, JAL are on top. Qantas are still holding their own but most of their flights have been discontinued and replaced by Jetstar services. Pax are now paying lower fares (less income) on aircraft that are about 10% less full. No airline can make money carrying loads as a LCC of 70%.
Now with Jetstar in that market, JAL are on top. Qantas are still holding their own but most of their flights have been discontinued and replaced by Jetstar services. Pax are now paying lower fares (less income) on aircraft that are about 10% less full. No airline can make money carrying loads as a LCC of 70%.
Originally Posted by fedsec
Qantas and their Board can't work out why they are losing money. I thought you would be able to.
Putting prices up isn't one of them.
Genuine transparency and appropriate allocation on costs and revenue is.
Want something more specific? The new uniforms are dreadful. When the LCC offshoot looks more upmarket than the mainline there's a fundamental problem in understanding. When you ground an airline instead of fighting the real fight then there's a problem. The grounding was gutsy, it cost a fortune, but it was a one off exercise in courage, timidity and procrastination is the hallmark of QF management. To not make a mistake is everything, and that can only be done by making no decisions.
And ultimately that is the biggest mistake of all.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by angryrat
Gee Romulus, I hope you aren't QF or J* management. Go back and have a read of the last 3-4 pages and the amount of contradictory theory you post. If you can't see it from your side, go back again and reread it from the opposite view.
Essentially you are saying that in 2013 more people are flying on QF metal because J* are involved yet the total overall numbers have fallen since 2005 and the reduction of numbers was going to happen anyway?
We are rooned because of this exact thinking. Your theories are not working. The sooner QF and the industry are rid of this thinking the better.
To prove you wrong on price, when it comes to holidays I don't fly QF because I want a holiday from the place. Two choices, J* staff travel(because I won't be recognised and can wear what I like) or Virgin full fare. Every holiday has been on Virgin because I'm happy to pay significantly more for better service. Kind of blows up your theory, again.
Essentially you are saying that in 2013 more people are flying on QF metal because J* are involved yet the total overall numbers have fallen since 2005 and the reduction of numbers was going to happen anyway?
We are rooned because of this exact thinking. Your theories are not working. The sooner QF and the industry are rid of this thinking the better.
To prove you wrong on price, when it comes to holidays I don't fly QF because I want a holiday from the place. Two choices, J* staff travel(because I won't be recognised and can wear what I like) or Virgin full fare. Every holiday has been on Virgin because I'm happy to pay significantly more for better service. Kind of blows up your theory, again.
The numbers I worked on were provided by fedsec and the outcome is therefore based on his input. What I showed was that fedsec's own numbers (i.e. data not provided by me so you can't accuse me of using biased data) showed a shedload of people flying JQ when there were premium priced mainline seats available.
Which is what fedsec wouldn't happen if prices were put up because people would happily pay the premium. Except for the real world fact that they are taking the lower fare whilst capacity exists on the premium fare. And not just in piddling numbers.
As for overall numbers what I am saying is that since 2005 the market has become a lot more competitive with a lot more choice. If QF didn't have a low cost offshoot then QF group numbers would be lower than they are with JQ.
That's not contradictory, that's just the result of examining fedsec's numbers.
As for you proving me wrong on price, you are happy to pay a higher price because you want away from Qantas and you won't fly Jetstar. Leaving aside what that says about you and how you view your colleagues do you really think that proves me wrong in the general marketplace?
Somehow I think not. I hope you are not in a position of decision making that relies on critical thinking.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by blueloo
HE is one of the, if not the highest paid airline CEOs in the world.
We are constantly told that to attract the best talent we need to pay for it.
If you believe the dribble spouted out about how wonderful QF management is, AND based on the CEOs remuneration, QANTAS should be a gold mine, and he would be shi*ting gold nuggets from his arse.
We are constantly told that to attract the best talent we need to pay for it.
If you believe the dribble spouted out about how wonderful QF management is, AND based on the CEOs remuneration, QANTAS should be a gold mine, and he would be shi*ting gold nuggets from his arse.
Joyce is not earning his pay. Nor is his support team.
One thing I do find interesting is the attitude in this thread compared to that in the BA Jo'burg incident. Over there a flight crew wander over to the wrong "taxiway" and everyone has huge sympathy for what is a pretty basic bit of ground navigation that thousands of others have already undertaken. Yet somehow in a hostile and competitive environment Joyce and Co are expected to pull out a roadmap that pleases everyone and returns higher profits. Quite amusing.