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

[600ft-lb]

Hey!

Expensive parties are a thing of the past, well for the workers anyway. Remember how we used to get a $10/head for Christmas lunch/dinner for having the audacity to be rostered on that day. GONE. Bring in your own sandwiches of leftovers for Christmas lunch/dinner.

I note that the executive Christmas parties still went ahead before they took their 2 week hiatus.

Merry Xmas

[Tankengine]

Being wrong in many posts is not more correct than being wrong in one!

[27/09]

Quote:

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 difference is that after taxiing into a building, the BA crew didn't congratulate themselves on a brilliant strategy, taxi into a few more buildings, congratulate themselves a bit more, throw a couple of expensive parties, and then demand special assistance to compensate for the unfair damage that the buildings have been causing to their wingtips.

Absolute Gold, I nearly fell of my chair.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by angryrat

Romulus, all it has done is exactly what Fedsec has said. I don't agree with a lot of what Fedsec writes, however I believe he is right and you are wrong in the analysis of the Japan route. (snipped for brevity of quote).

Feel free to provide your interpretation of fedsec's figures. If it's limited to a nice rousing "what he said" then that's fine, but it reveals your capabilities.

Originally Posted by angryrat

With respect to your comment on colleagues, you totally missed the point unless you view J* personnel as my colleagues(which I don't).

You probably don't see yourself as part of the problem either.

Originally Posted by angryrat

Critical thinking? What like yours? All you are using is an unproven theory, from an MBA student who never worked in airlines, to tell people how an airline should be run.

Dum de dum. And the Assumption Stakes oare underway with Angryrat opening a nice strong lead...

Originally Posted by angryrat

Anyway, are you the twin that started up the * that is now paid a $50k a month retainer not to sell the secrets to the competitor. Even if you aren't him, what a joke, like JB doesn't know the answers anyway.

Wouldn't mind $50K a month to keep quiet would you? Perhaps you should follow suit...

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Romulus, you have used the figures from my research and calculated that more people fly on Jetstar on the Japan route than on Qantas but that doesn't prove a thing. Jetstar are flying 4 flights a day to Qantas's 1. In Sep 2006 Qantas were running 6 flights a day with higher load factors than Jetstar do now. Many of the lost customers have moved to JAL.


You can say people haven't been forced to fly Jetstar because nobody has a gun at their heads which is correct as a statement but the real issue is this. People have been forced to fly an airline other than Qantas because apart from one flight a day, the opportunity to choose a Qantas flight has been taken away (that is the extra 5 flights per day).


Many of the pax who have been forced away from Qantas have chosen Jetstar but a substantial number have also moved to JAL. That is why they are now leading Qantas and Jetstar for load factors on those sectors.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by fedsec

Many of the pax who have been forced away from Qantas have chosen Jetstar but a substantial number have also moved to JAL. That is why they are now leading Qantas and Jetstar for load factors on those sectors.

Well let's do the numbers shall we.

In Sept 05/06 your figures give JAL 90 flights at approx 72% load. I don't know what JAL were using on the route in 05/06 but let's go with a 747 with 400 capacity.

90 x 0.72 x 400 = 25,920

Let's take your highest later JAL load figure fr 2013 that you provided and use 88%.

JAL now have 30 flights, and let's go with 300 seat 777s.

So we get

30 x 0.88 x 300 = 7,920

Um, wait a minute. Didn't you say a "substantial number" of QF customers had moved over to JAL?

JAL who are operating 1/3 of the number of flights?

And showing about 18,000 *LESS* passengers...

Good thing that "substantial number" of Jetstar passengers moved over to JAL, they'd be flying just about empty if that hadn't happened!

And let's look back at the previous numbers. QF mainline were moving just over 9,000 passengers. Quick mental arithmetic tells me that QF mainline are moving 9,072 - 7,920 = 1,152 MORE passengers than JAL.

Are you sure that "JAL has been turned from the market loser to the market leader." as per your post #1428? I note that you have changes your position in Post #1486 to "That is why they [JAL] are now leading Qantas and Jetstar for load factors on those sectors." which is a totally different thing to being market leader.

Personally I'd say QF with 9K passengers is ahead of JAL with 8K, and QF group with a combined total of about 26.5K is streets ahead of JAL's 8K.

Overall the QF total : JAL ratio has moved from 52K:26K to 26K: 8K

Or to do the maths the ratio has gone from 2:1 in 05/06 to 3.25:1 now yet somehow you think JAL (the 1) is the market leader...

Methinks your argument is somewhat flawed mate.

Note: Edit to change format to avoid a smiley getting dropped in to ratio numbers

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by tankengine

Being wrong in many posts is not more correct than being wrong in one!

Yet you're probably one of those people who complains that there is never enough communication and that your questions are never answered.

Thankyou for your masterful contribution.

[airsupport]

Quote:
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./quote

Yes, I can see that being top of mind for a huge number of passengers.

LAMEless tarmacs are used all over the world, planes are not colliding as a result of that.

Sadly it is not in the minds of most pax as they are not aware of it, once they are aware of it most are very concerned.

Yes sadly they are used all over the World, much more sad is that Australia USED TO BE the highest standard that the rest of the World looked up to, now our standards are REDUCED to the lower standards in the rest of the World, and for a savings of less than $1 per pax per flight, VERY SAD.

[waren9]

rom, i think fedsec meant qf not qf group

[27/09]

Well let's do the numbers shall we.

In Sept 05/06 your figures give JAL 90 flights at approx 72% load. I don't know what JAL were using on the route in 05/06 but let's go with a 747 with 400 capacity.

90 x 0.72 x 400 = 25,920

Let's take your highest later JAL load figure fr 2013 that you provided and use 88%.

JAL now have 30 flights, and let's go with 300 seat 777s.

So we get

30 x 0.88 x 300 = 7,920

Um, wait a minute. Didn't you say a "substantial number" of QF customers had moved over to JAL?

JAL who are operating 1/3 of the number of flights?

And showing about 18,000 *LESS* passengers...

Good thing that "substantial number" of Jetstar passengers moved over to JAL, they'd be flying just about empty if that hadn't happened!

And let's look back at the previous numbers. QF mainline were moving just over 9,000 passengers. Quick mental arithmetic tells me that QF mainline are moving 9,072 - 7,920 = 1,152 MORE passengers than JAL.

Are you sure that "JAL has been turned from the market loser to the market leader." as per your post #1428? I note that you have changes your position in Post #1486 to "That is why they [JAL] are now leading Qantas and Jetstar for load factors on those sectors." which is a totally different thing to being market leader.

Personally I'd say QF with 9K passengers is ahead of JAL with 8K, and QF group with a combined total of about 26.5K is streets ahead of JAL's 8K.

Overall the QF total : JAL ratio has moved from 52K:26K to 26K: 8K

Or to do the maths the ratio has gone from 2:1 in 05/06 to 3.25:1 now yet somehow you think JAL (the 1) is the market leader...

Methinks your argument is somewhat flawed mate.

Note: Edit to change format to avoid a smiley getting dropped in to ratio numbers

Reading that made my head hurt but it did remind me of a favourite saying attributed to Winston Churchill; There's Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

[booglaboy]

Just to clarify Romulus, your stance is that Jq has not cannibalised Qf and forced loyal Qf pax onto the Jq flts due no choice as they still try to support Australian owned airlines?
It's like the stats we hear about Qf's declining international pax percentages,yet if u add the Jq numbers back in the number r the same. Spin and lies

[hiwaytohell]

There's Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

Exactly!!!

There is an awful lot of rubbish in this thread.

We have forgotten that Qantas via Australian Airlines added a lot of extra capacity between Australia & Japan from late 2002, which was obviously taken up by JQ in 2006 after Qantas abandoned AO.

Tourism between Japan & Australia was also hit hard by the exchange rate and the Japanese economy, which if not for JQ's lower fares could have been much worse.

Plus the service offered by JAL, when I flew them 2005 through 2010 was crap in clapped out 767s and old 747s, however their product today is much better, which is obviously winning back customers.

Fedsec. I understand your argument. I know flying to CNS I used to fly QF all the time, but they replaced so many flights with JQ. They only "forced" me onto JQ a couple of times, instead for similar money I now fly VA, which is a much better experience.

[Tankengine]

Romulus,
Saying you are communicating but just spruiking bull**** every five minutes with no real info is not communicating.
You don't write ITN do you?

[Jetsbest]

Romulus, Prof et al..

If it's so simple why are QF management not making the case more eloquently to the doubting employees?

There are so many simple, yet unanswered, questions about true costings, cost-shifting, costs of multiple/duplicated management structures & AOCs, cloudy accounting etc; the ALAEA list comes to mind.

There has been so much part-truth, double standards and misleading spin from the "head shed" that no one believes anything they say anymore; any talk has never been the whole truth under the current "leadership". (term used advisedly)

So your explanations may contain part-truth but overwhelming cynicism remains. Who in QF sets the tone? Who can 'clear the air'?

A bit of openness and honesty would go a long way towards giving some traction to the points you're trying to make; if employees could believe, they could help far more effectively than the current managerial "trust us" approach.

OTOH, this discussion has been going on since well before the grounding and management haven't chosen to bring the employees along with any kind of respect. Resources, in these desperate times, spent on scrolls, 'moving on' and engagement courses are largely viewed as expensive coolaid for the masses as management still go about the gardening with an ideological wheelbarrow and a sledge hammer. The almost incontrovertible conclusion is that this management cannot solve the problems.

Condescension is another thing management are good at too, but it doesn't win hearts or minds!

[Ken Borough]

We have forgotten that Qantas via Australian Airlines added a lot of extra capacity between Australia & Japan from late 2002,

Hi way,

I'm not going to abuse you, call you a troll or otherwise attack you 'cos I disagree with you! I think you will find that Australian did not add much capacity when they took over Osaka, Nagoya and Fukuoka from Qantas. They went from 2 class 767's and 747's to something like a one class 270 seater 767s. SARS and a couple of other issues led to the demise of Australian. My memory may be failing but I think the Japanese market was def showing signs of decline at that time.

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Romulus, carrying more seats around than your competitor doesn't make you a market leader. Carrying more pax around doesn't either if you have lots of empty seats you are paying for but not generating income with.

I thought you were into efficiencies. Surely the carrier who flies around with a higher percentage of seats filled is a market leader. Their expenses are less and they earn more income per ASK.

I may not know as much as you about airlines. So lets just say you win the debate. After all you have worked in Aviation management and I am just a mere Mechanic.

Is Alan happy yet anyone?

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by booglaboy

Just to clarify Romulus, your stance is that Jq has not cannibalised Qf and forced loyal Qf pax onto the Jq flts due no choice as they still try to support Australian owned airlines?
It's like the stats we hear about Qf's declining international pax percentages,yet if u add the Jq numbers back in the number r the same. Spin and lies

Jetstar is a protective play to cover QF from low cost competitors. As such it has, contrary to Fedsec's claims, cannibalised some QF customers, but my point is that those are the customers who would otherwise have been entirely lost to an alternate LCC.

The numbers as provided by Fedsec show why this is important on certain routes. For both JAL and QF, full service carriers, numbers are down. The market is far more fractured than it was even 10 years ago. Whereas Fedsec believes ticket prices can be put up with no effect on passenger choice my position is that that level of pricing power disappeared a long time ago.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by jetsbest

If it's so simple why are QF management not making the case more eloquently to the doubting employees?

Read back mate, you will also see I have stated I do not believe Joyce and Co are earning their dollars.

Originally Posted by jetsbest

There are so many simple, yet unanswered, questions .... [snipped for brevity]

I agree. One of the keys to a Qantas revival is a very direct and if need be blunt level of communication. It must be honest. It must not be sugar coated. It must be consistent with all other communication.

Qantas needs to restructure, that is evident. That involves a lot of pain for a significant number of people. Prolonging it does no favours, a plan should be formulated, laid out and enacted.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by fedsec

Romulus, carrying more seats around than your competitor doesn't make you a market leader. Carrying more pax around doesn't either if you have lots of empty seats you are paying for but not generating income with.

I thought you were into efficiencies. Surely the carrier who flies around with a higher percentage of seats filled is a market leader. Their expenses are less and they earn more income per ASK.

The two are not DIRECTLY connected. You can probably fill every seat if you sell them for $1 each. But you're not going to make profit.

The tradeoff of customer behaviour with regard to price of your product vs decision to go elsewhere is key. If you can charge a premium for your product then you potentially need to sell less to make the same profit. This is particularly so in an airline environment where the majority of costs are fixed, there is very little variable cost for adding an additional passenger compared to the cost of getting the aircraft in the air for that trip.

Market leader can be determined in many ways, one things humans are good at is maximisation, we are nowhere near as good at optimisation. If 100 customers are good, then 200 must be better. Or must it? If I make twice as much from those 100 individuals then it is break even. Tailoring operational offering to market conditions is critical.

Originally Posted by fedsec

I may not know as much as you about airlines. So lets just say you win the debate. After all you have worked in Aviation management and I am just a mere Mechanic.

Is Alan happy yet anyone?

Now you're into passive aggressive behaviour when challenged.

What I have called you on is your claim that the answer to QF issues is to simply raise ticket prices and also the conclusions you have drawn from the QF/JAL numbers you provided.

[hiwaytohell]

I think you will find that Australian did not add much capacity when they took over Osaka, Nagoya and Fukuoka from Qantas. They went from 2 class 767's and 747's to something like a one class 270 seater 767s. SARS and a couple of other issues led to the demise of Australian. My memory may be failing but I think the Japanese market was def showing signs of decline at that time.

AO operated from Oct 2002 to Jun 2006, (SARs occurred from Nov 2002 to Jul 2003).

If we take International services ex CNS pax numbers grew from 723,000 in FY01/02, 754,000 in FY02/03, 791,000 in FY03/04, 857,000 in 04/05, and again 857,000 in 05/06, but then the dollar and falling Japanese economy kicked in with pax declining to 763,000 in FY06/07 and bottoming out in 09/10 in 469,000. (source BITRE).

I think you will find the growth between 2001/2002 and 2003/04 was directly the result of increased capacity by AO of about 10-15% on routes to Japan from CNS. I seem to recall not only did the seating density increase on the 763s but also additional frequency..

SARs had nothing to do with the demise of AO, the problem was that AO offered nothing that QF could not offer. It simply added a new brand into the market and had an unsustainable cost base spread over a small operation.

By the time Qantas realised AO was not viable their loads were peaking. The fall in forward Japanese bookings just made the decision to axe it all the more urgent.

Just highlights that lessons of the past have still not been learnt.