MERGED: Alan's still not happy......
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Florence
Age: 74
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the big difference
Josh Cox and Spelling Nazi,
There is a world of difference!
First, not one of the investors in VA is investing so much that they are putting their own business at risk, and
Second, although they get the after-tax return on their investment, we get the economic benefit of that money circulating with Australia.
Now compare that with the Joyce strategy:
Take a bunch of Australian capital and invest it overseas, saddle yourself with about $8 billion of off-balance-sheet debt to provide aircraft, pick places with potential but unfortunately strong rules about control so that you end up with economic interests that far exceed your voting rights, hope that one day in the next 10-15 years that some profits are generated to offset the continuous cost of the Australian capital invested, manage your cash flow by shrinking your revenue-generating operations while expanding your management overheads, then disguise the death spiral by becoming a remora attached to the Emirates shark and hoping to survive on the detritus that comes your way when your host eats what used to be your lunch.
[and Emirates is guilty of little more than taking up the opportunities gifted to them by a desperate Qantas management unrestrained by a careless Australian government]
Such a wholesale transfer of economic benefit offshore but with so little public interest...
There is a world of difference!
First, not one of the investors in VA is investing so much that they are putting their own business at risk, and
Second, although they get the after-tax return on their investment, we get the economic benefit of that money circulating with Australia.
Now compare that with the Joyce strategy:
Take a bunch of Australian capital and invest it overseas, saddle yourself with about $8 billion of off-balance-sheet debt to provide aircraft, pick places with potential but unfortunately strong rules about control so that you end up with economic interests that far exceed your voting rights, hope that one day in the next 10-15 years that some profits are generated to offset the continuous cost of the Australian capital invested, manage your cash flow by shrinking your revenue-generating operations while expanding your management overheads, then disguise the death spiral by becoming a remora attached to the Emirates shark and hoping to survive on the detritus that comes your way when your host eats what used to be your lunch.
[and Emirates is guilty of little more than taking up the opportunities gifted to them by a desperate Qantas management unrestrained by a careless Australian government]
Such a wholesale transfer of economic benefit offshore but with so little public interest...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spelling nazi,
there is a difference.... in Singapore, Japan, Vietnam and Hong Kong, Qantas owns less than 50% equity in each of those countries. There is separate board and management, albeit some shared services (eg. website, booking systems)
In the case of VA, you have foreign airlines who now own 80% of the listed entity, there is some trust thingy that says it is under 50% for international. At one point there was a separate board but that hasn't been mentioned since, and everything seems to be run out of the same building.
--
As for QF International, the rot is in and extremely difficult to turn around. International aviation is a tough game - lots of competitors (far more than in the old days when it was predominately the western nations with airlines) with access to the same planes, roughly the same fuel cost etc - so controlling little things becomes important.
Negatives for Qantas International
- High management cost (look at Aus salaries v Asian equivs)
- Higher tech and FA costs (particularly v Asian/Emirates equivs)
- Stricter OH&S policies on workforce (compare flying hours for example)
- Higher maintenance costs (although higher quality)
- Higher home airport costs (thanks to privatisation and not having government owned/supported airports)
- Worse aircraft depreciation policies
- Higher corporate tax rates
- Home bases not located at a hub that can reach most of the world
- Home bases not located close to major jet fuel producing facilities
Positives
- Great reach in its FF scheme, but reality is this is really only attractive to high tier elites, and at some point $$ rules
- Large number of corporate contracts thanks to domestic network
- Natural domestic feed
- Good brand and safety record
While Qantas does have a lot of positives, unless you can address a chunk of the negatives it is a tough game to make money when Joe Blogs only cares about the $ cost of the flight.
As for the McKinsey theorey - plenty of businesses manage multiple brands, positioned at different points in the market.
If Qantas had not Jetstar, we still would have seen LCCs in this country - Tiger Australia may have entered earlier or RyanAir, or AirAsia (all possible to have 100% owned ops) and Qantas domestic routes would have been given up as they became unprofitable under price competition. The fact that Qantas started Jetstar has made the group stronger and expanded the Australian domestic market, as much as some don't like it.
there is a difference.... in Singapore, Japan, Vietnam and Hong Kong, Qantas owns less than 50% equity in each of those countries. There is separate board and management, albeit some shared services (eg. website, booking systems)
In the case of VA, you have foreign airlines who now own 80% of the listed entity, there is some trust thingy that says it is under 50% for international. At one point there was a separate board but that hasn't been mentioned since, and everything seems to be run out of the same building.
--
As for QF International, the rot is in and extremely difficult to turn around. International aviation is a tough game - lots of competitors (far more than in the old days when it was predominately the western nations with airlines) with access to the same planes, roughly the same fuel cost etc - so controlling little things becomes important.
Negatives for Qantas International
- High management cost (look at Aus salaries v Asian equivs)
- Higher tech and FA costs (particularly v Asian/Emirates equivs)
- Stricter OH&S policies on workforce (compare flying hours for example)
- Higher maintenance costs (although higher quality)
- Higher home airport costs (thanks to privatisation and not having government owned/supported airports)
- Worse aircraft depreciation policies
- Higher corporate tax rates
- Home bases not located at a hub that can reach most of the world
- Home bases not located close to major jet fuel producing facilities
Positives
- Great reach in its FF scheme, but reality is this is really only attractive to high tier elites, and at some point $$ rules
- Large number of corporate contracts thanks to domestic network
- Natural domestic feed
- Good brand and safety record
While Qantas does have a lot of positives, unless you can address a chunk of the negatives it is a tough game to make money when Joe Blogs only cares about the $ cost of the flight.
As for the McKinsey theorey - plenty of businesses manage multiple brands, positioned at different points in the market.
If Qantas had not Jetstar, we still would have seen LCCs in this country - Tiger Australia may have entered earlier or RyanAir, or AirAsia (all possible to have 100% owned ops) and Qantas domestic routes would have been given up as they became unprofitable under price competition. The fact that Qantas started Jetstar has made the group stronger and expanded the Australian domestic market, as much as some don't like it.
The trouble is, Moa99 that the Company's focus is completely on supporting at whatever cost the Jetstar International product, to the detriment of QF. JQ domestic makes a quid I grant you, but its many ops overseas are another thing entirely. The SE Asian countries are not mugs. They continue to fight with all their weapons Jetstar International. Having someone say that "we are hopeful " JQ Japan will turn a profit in 3-4 years just won't wash. I won't even start to wonder what clever accounting gymnastics are being used to hide losses.
Keep peddling Moa.
Simple problem…... where are any results from Alan and the board?
Answer… There aren't any!
Just continual drivel to justify their own personal existence.
Blaming everyone and everything else, apart from their own ineptitude, to run an airline that once had a global presence.
Perhaps not fighting with your own team would be a start, but one imagines that sporting achievements and teamwork didn't make up much of Alan and Leigh's formative years.
Shame really.
Get rid of any short term or long term bonus schemes. They kill long term vision. Paid salary from the ceo down would be a start. If you don't like it, leave.
Simple problem…... where are any results from Alan and the board?
Answer… There aren't any!
Just continual drivel to justify their own personal existence.
Blaming everyone and everything else, apart from their own ineptitude, to run an airline that once had a global presence.
Perhaps not fighting with your own team would be a start, but one imagines that sporting achievements and teamwork didn't make up much of Alan and Leigh's formative years.
Shame really.
Get rid of any short term or long term bonus schemes. They kill long term vision. Paid salary from the ceo down would be a start. If you don't like it, leave.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect that QF have already briefed both sides of Parliament to the effect that the Qantas Sale Act needs to be amended to either facilitate the current behaviour to continue with foreign money or to allow a "capital restructure" to take place - which is a euphemism for Emirates to take a controlling interest.
Qantas: Lock up your pilots
Emirates wants more than Qantas passengers flying on faux Qantas code-shares from Australian cities Qantas can’t be bothered serving anymore. It wants Qantas pilots.Qantas (and Virgin): Lock up your pilots | Plane Talking
Emirates wants more than Qantas passengers flying on faux Qantas code-shares from Australian cities Qantas can’t be bothered serving anymore. It wants Qantas pilots.Qantas (and Virgin): Lock up your pilots | Plane Talking
timing
ˈtʌɪmɪŋ/
noun
noun: timing
1.
the choice, judgement, or control of when something should be done.
"one of the secrets of cricket is good timing"
ˈtʌɪmɪŋ/
noun
noun: timing
1.
the choice, judgement, or control of when something should be done.
"one of the secrets of cricket is good timing"
Sunfish:
Not as unpleasant as I would make them...
Qantas Board meetings by now must be very unpleasant affairs.
Timbo had offered advice before
Emirates offers Qantas advice
By Scott Rochfort
Sydney
June 23, 2005
The Emirates airline has recommended Qantas be more aggressive in expanding its international network, particularly in the Middle East, instead of complaining about being a disadvantaged "end of the line" carrier.
With Emirates expected to deliver a report to the Federal Government today extolling the economic and tourism benefits of Australia opening its air routes to foreign carriers, the Dubai carrier's president, Tim Clark, has suggested Qantas should even take advantage of its rights to fly into Dubai.
"Why doesn't Qantas fly to Dubai? Why doesn't Qantas exercise its grandfather aero-political rights which are in primary areas?" Mr Clark said.
"Quite frankly, the West Asian-Middle-Eastern market (is) potent for us, as the trans-Pacific is for Qantas."
Emirates did not have access to the trans-Pacific but Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon did, he said. "Why does it always have to be the Kangaroo route?" Mr Clark said, adding that Qantas had "a lot going for them".
Advertisement
Mr Clark's comments counter Mr Dixon's warnings about unfair advantages government-owned hub carriers enjoy against privately owned airlines. Qantas has used this argument in lobbying the Government to block Singapore Airlines' bid to enter the lucrative Australia-Los Angeles route.
Emirates chairman Sheik Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum and Mr Clark are to give a presentation to several Coalition MPs today to debunk "myths" about the benefits Emirates enjoys as a government-owned carrier.
"We really want the Government to know that when we came here in '96 that we saw this as just the beginning, and that we are committed to staying here for the long haul. Because Australia in a route grouping is the second-most-profitable and we've done really well here," Mr Clark said.
"We believed right from the start that this was a market that was underserved; we believed that we could add value, we could bring people in."
Emirates was happy with its "very generous" access into Australia, he said. Unlike Singapore Airlines, Emirates would not push for entry to the Sydney-LA route, but Qantas should push for more access overseas.
In response, Qantas executive general manager John Borghetti said: "We've been running a successful airline for 85 years, but we thank them for their advice."
Qantas 'still on target to meet forecast'
Qantas has issued a statement saying it will meet profit forecasts for this financial year, moving to quell speculation it could be preparing to issue a downgrade as a result of rising oil prices, softening demand and accounting adjustments.
In a response to talk in the market that the airline could issue a profit downgrade or major write-down as early as tomorrow, Qantas said it "would meet the current market expectations for the 2004-05 financial year".
The airline said it would make an announcement tomorrow to detail accounting changes to be made to adopt Australian equivalents to the International Financial Reporting Standards
By Scott Rochfort
Sydney
June 23, 2005
The Emirates airline has recommended Qantas be more aggressive in expanding its international network, particularly in the Middle East, instead of complaining about being a disadvantaged "end of the line" carrier.
With Emirates expected to deliver a report to the Federal Government today extolling the economic and tourism benefits of Australia opening its air routes to foreign carriers, the Dubai carrier's president, Tim Clark, has suggested Qantas should even take advantage of its rights to fly into Dubai.
"Why doesn't Qantas fly to Dubai? Why doesn't Qantas exercise its grandfather aero-political rights which are in primary areas?" Mr Clark said.
"Quite frankly, the West Asian-Middle-Eastern market (is) potent for us, as the trans-Pacific is for Qantas."
Emirates did not have access to the trans-Pacific but Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon did, he said. "Why does it always have to be the Kangaroo route?" Mr Clark said, adding that Qantas had "a lot going for them".
Advertisement
Mr Clark's comments counter Mr Dixon's warnings about unfair advantages government-owned hub carriers enjoy against privately owned airlines. Qantas has used this argument in lobbying the Government to block Singapore Airlines' bid to enter the lucrative Australia-Los Angeles route.
Emirates chairman Sheik Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum and Mr Clark are to give a presentation to several Coalition MPs today to debunk "myths" about the benefits Emirates enjoys as a government-owned carrier.
"We really want the Government to know that when we came here in '96 that we saw this as just the beginning, and that we are committed to staying here for the long haul. Because Australia in a route grouping is the second-most-profitable and we've done really well here," Mr Clark said.
"We believed right from the start that this was a market that was underserved; we believed that we could add value, we could bring people in."
Emirates was happy with its "very generous" access into Australia, he said. Unlike Singapore Airlines, Emirates would not push for entry to the Sydney-LA route, but Qantas should push for more access overseas.
In response, Qantas executive general manager John Borghetti said: "We've been running a successful airline for 85 years, but we thank them for their advice."
Qantas 'still on target to meet forecast'
Qantas has issued a statement saying it will meet profit forecasts for this financial year, moving to quell speculation it could be preparing to issue a downgrade as a result of rising oil prices, softening demand and accounting adjustments.
In a response to talk in the market that the airline could issue a profit downgrade or major write-down as early as tomorrow, Qantas said it "would meet the current market expectations for the 2004-05 financial year".
The airline said it would make an announcement tomorrow to detail accounting changes to be made to adopt Australian equivalents to the International Financial Reporting Standards
short flights long nights
And move forward to (nearly) 2014, and I think Emirates is eyeing the SYD-LAX route. The 777 300ER / 200 LR would be perfect for it and would not require a fuel stop on the return sector. They could do it under a QF code share. And it would give EK a complete round the world service.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Exiled in the Ukraine
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore have been trying for nearly 20 years to get that route. Still hasn't happened so what makes you lot think you have a chance?
Plenty of our own on LWOP to fill that job thanks SOP. 
Well, if it happens, Emirates certainaly has aircraft on order to modernise the Qantas fleet, and I suspect a lot of people willing to come home and fly them.
Thread Starter
The 777 300ER / 200 LR would be perfect for it and would not require a fuel stop on the return sector
short flights long nights
Thank you, I stand corrected. I was actually thinking of the SYD DFW route.
moa999
You’re comparing apples with oranges buddy. VA ownership will be 23-26% NZ, 20% SQ and 20% EY. Between them they will own 63-66% of VA. If you include Richard Branson’s Virgin Group then that is 73-76%. In the case of J* Hong Kong it will be 33% owned by the QF group and 33% by MU for a 66% foreign ownership. I find it incredibly hypocritical of you and your boss AJ assuming you work for QF or JQ to think it is OK to try and pull this off in Hong Kong when it is a clear violation of Hong Kong’s constitution, the Basic Law when the fact is that VA’s structure 100% complies with Australia’s foreign ownership laws governing domestic and international airlines based in Australia.
there is a difference.... in Singapore, Japan, Vietnam and Hong Kong, Qantas owns less than 50% equity in each of those countries.
In the case of VA, you have foreign airlines who now own 80% of the listed entity
short flights long nights
Is the point, however 404, that they are not pulling it off in Hong Kong, just pouring in millions do dollars into a venture that is doomed from the start?
Last edited by SOPS; 26th Nov 2013 at 11:49.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Warm & Sunny
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another reason....
Sunfish; "The reason Qantas is a basket case"...
Another reason Sunfish, is that Qantas has a lightweight CEO who has surrounded himself with equally ( or more so ) lightweight management who are incapable of becoming a threat to him .
Classic Peter Principle manager.
Role on....
Another reason Sunfish, is that Qantas has a lightweight CEO who has surrounded himself with equally ( or more so ) lightweight management who are incapable of becoming a threat to him .
Classic Peter Principle manager.
Role on....
SOPS
That may very we'll be the case. The point though I was trying to make was the hypocrisy of QF.
This is all a distraction though by AJ. He is simply using VA as a leverage to have the QF sales act and ownership laws of Australian international carriers altered to allow majority foreign ownership.
That may very we'll be the case. The point though I was trying to make was the hypocrisy of QF.
This is all a distraction though by AJ. He is simply using VA as a leverage to have the QF sales act and ownership laws of Australian international carriers altered to allow majority foreign ownership.
404, Point understood, but from our point of view it is the hypocrisy of QF _management_. Poor staff have had this insanity foisted upon them for years. We are more fed up with it than anyone! Don't forget also that simply commenting in a manner 'they' (the idiots) don't like puts you in a position of having a meeting of very cold tea and very stale biscuits at the very least. The incompetent and grossly arrogant CEO surrounds himself with weak minded incompetents who in turn employ weak minded incompetents who bully anyone with a brain below them. And the investor (or even worse some overpaid twit in a pinstripe suit who makes sure HIS money isn't involved in his fund) finally starts to wake up after losing his bonus over a few years on the back of BGA's great wisdom and eventually starts actually thinking for himself without the aid of lubrication in the Chairmans Club Lounge.
The incompetent and grossly arrogant CEO surrounds himself with weak minded incompetents who in turn employ weak minded incompetents who bully anyone with a brain below them.
1st level down are not old school airline and just do as they are told. The next level down are even worst apparently. Bully boys interested in 1, sorry 2 things, bonus and their next trip in P class.
The things that I have heard range from:
The new mafia (place to the right of Italy, looking at the map), in ground ops and airports, that apparently management are sick of but even the bully boys are too scared to address = they only employ their own, apparently.
New staff telling the older, read experienced and knowledgeable, that 'you oldies should leave because you have it all wrong, the company is a success and run well".