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

Qantas Fleet Order Speculation

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

Qantas Fleet Order Speculation

Old 15th Jun 2015, 10:05
  #401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Melbourne
Age: 44
Posts: 180
Nothing has been agreed to & been firmed up , they have not ordered the 787s for QF mainline, and there is no indication that they will recommend an expansion or aircraft order to the board.

Remember your maintenance "engineers" cost the company several hundred million through industrial action over the years, & these debts have to be paid at some point.

I would have though reducing the debt might be a more important priority , the Int business has been one screw up after another for 30 years.
Flyboat North is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 10:06
  #402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Strayer
Posts: 38
The last time they really agreed to those rates was after EBA 8 was sunk in 2008. Pretty bloody obvious they no longer reckon they can 'make a dollar' out of it.
lotsta is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 10:16
  #403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 401
QF management spending billions to buy you guys 787s , forget it guys , it just ain't gonna happen.
Tell you what, FBN. If, after 18 months from now, QF haven't announced an order for 787s (or similar) to be flown by mainline pilots, you can come back to this thread and write "Nyer nyer, told you so" in really big capitals. If, on the other hand, they do announce such an order, you'l make one final post here admitting you're a troll and a know-nothing bozo with an unhealthy obsession with other people's Ts & Cs. After which you'll bugger off and make no further comment on the topic. Sound fair?
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 10:45
  #404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 954
Expecting anything sensible from FBN posts would be like expecting honesty in any of Joseph Geobbels speeches.

What is so annoying is that it isn't intelligent, factual commenting. I don't mind (actually I learn most from) people with differing views, but non-factual illegitimate rants based on innuendo and rubbish is very annoying.

I would like to think most of us grew out of that kind of debating in about 5th class at school. 'You smell! Cos you do!' type of circular arguing shouldn't really be the domain of (hopefully) adult discussions involving billions of dollars and thousands of peoples lives.
V-Jet is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 11:20
  #405 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,200
Lightbulb

This message is hidden because Flyboat North is on your ignore list.
Do not feed the troll.
Keg is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 11:21
  #406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,768
FBN:--- you still haven't told me how much a brand new SO in QF earns compared to a brand new CX SO?

QF fly 1 Capt, 1 FO and 2 SO's on their long haul whereas CX fly 1 Capt, 2 FO's and 1 SO long haul.

Compare a QF A330 Capt to a CX A330 Capt in HK and include all the CX expat allowances.

Compare a QF 744 Capt to a CX 744 Capt in HK and include all the CX expat allowances and see how it looks then.

The only crew that would be cheaper are the cabin crew.

The major operating cost for QF is not the crew......these same costs are effecting Asian carriers as well.

QF have the wrong fleet, simple.

Once you've done that compare QF to EK as well.
ACMS is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 20:10
  #407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: home
Posts: 347
Doesn't matter who earns what ! That fly crew pay has anything more than a minuscule effect on the operating cost of an aircraft is a rumour started by management. I could never work out why Airline management insist on pi55ng off the people who have the major operating cost of an aircraft, fuel, in their left or right hand .
airdualbleedfault is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 22:23
  #408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 1,543
This crap that Qantas pilots "work less" is a furphy.
Our Australian rules say 900hours per year, in times the company pushes many to that limit. When they don't it is not the pilots fault.

Last edited by Tankengine; 15th Jun 2015 at 23:13.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2015, 23:11
  #409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 448
Oh god, here we go again...

Who remembers the good old days when Flyboat kept his trap shut for a few months? But here he is, back again pushing the exact same barrow, with the same incorrect figures, and the same disgusting attitude.

Why bother? You've said it all before, over and over and over. And given you are not a professional pilot, not an engineer or cabin crew and you don't work for Qantas, one struggles to see why you have such a morbid fascination with other people's income.

If we want to hear the exact same drivel from you again Flyboat, we can click on your profile and read your old posts. It is the same line, again and again and again and again. So save your typing, or the cut and paste job.

If you want to say something new then why don't you enlighten us with what you do for a living, how much you earn, what extensive tertiary education you completed and why you are such a hero to your lucky employer? Or are you only good a throwing rocks at others and not so good at defending yourself?
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 00:53
  #410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 65
Pilot costs do have an impact on the cost of the operation.

Last full financial year fuel costs were about 1/3 of total costs. So say the B787 is flying a 16hour sector, with 4 crew. Average burn (Very rough figures here) 5 tonne/hour costing $5000 per hour, for a total cost of $15,000 per hour. (Any lower cost for fuel will mean crew costs have an even higher percentage impact on the cost of the operation).

Flight crew cost $300 + $200 + 2*$100 = $700 per hour, but costs of employment (super, allowances leave, regulatory compliance etc) probably increase that at least by 1/3, so call it roughly $1000 per hour. That is 6.7% of the total cost of the operation, just for pilots.

Now imagine you have to pay double time (or more) for every hour beyond 14 hours, and 33% night credits etc. You would then be looking at pilot costs around 15% of total costs for the hours when overtime is paid.

When airline margins are historically very thin (1.6% last year according to IATA), this added costs erases the profiitability of the route. Therefore, we cannot justify the route, and therefore we miss out on the associated expansion.

Demanding double overtime and night credits on long four crew routes would kill the profitability of those routes, meaning we don't do them, meaning we have less growth, meaning we all lose out on increased income and promotions in the long run.
Sprite is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 01:48
  #411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: S33E151
Posts: 954
This is now very old, but this passed across a desk I was near in BKK some 10 years ago. I jotted them down as they were written - just for interests sake.

BKK-LHR 11:37 flt time
Overflight Costs: $9520.92
Fuel: $33,860.43 (130.5t)
Maint $6,025.00
Crew $651

TOTAL: $50,057.35
Landing Charges: $9000
Catering: $3500

Then a note underneath '$48000 full crew 2 hours incl Landing Charge'

The note was confusing because it was non specific, but that was what was on the page. I assume $USD.
V-Jet is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 02:37
  #412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Some food for thought:

Labor is a significant cost to an airline and one of the few things that can be controlled by management.

Airline profits on average are wafer thin and every bit counts.

Airlines can’t attract capital investment without proving cost savings, efficiency gains and labor reform.

The cost of labor at QF is way beyond even keel when compared to MOST carriers in Asia and certainly not even in the same market as the Chinese carriers who have only just starting cutting up QF market share. The average cockpit crewmember in a Chinese cockpit would cost the airline about 20% of the cost of a pacific baron.

A 30% savings in cockpit crew cost at QF could save the company upwards of several hundred million dollars per annum. Which company would not want this saving to be made?
AnQrKa is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 02:52
  #413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,018
several hundred mill a year?

I thought qf's total tech crew bill was 200ish mill
maggot is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 03:01
  #414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 65
2000 or so total mainline crew, a conservative average wage across LH/SH of $200k = $400 million. Add in employment costs and you're looking at at least $500 million tech crew costs per year. So yes, a 30% decrease in tech crew costs would be at least $165 million increase in profit....or the difference between profit and loss.
Sprite is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 03:01
  #415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 1,543
AnQrKa,
Interesting that Chinese cockpit crew are so cheap when Qantas is losing pilots to Chinese carriers because they earn more on contracts than at Qantas.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 03:08
  #416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 297
Flyboat North-Industrial Action is a two-way street, Engineers action was in direct response to Qantas policy, Lockout and shutdown was entirely industrial policy generated by Qantas. As always an constructive relationship would have saved billions!
busdriver007 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 03:24
  #417 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,768
Sprite:-- and just think what 100% reduction would save, oh hang on....


According to the 2014 annual report for CX, total staff costs ( 33,000 staff of which 3,000 are crew ) account for 18% of total expenses. ( of that maybe 5% would be Pilots )

Which one is the biggest cost to CX???? FUEL.

Same for QF, the problem is that they have an old gas guzzling fleet that uses TOO MUCH FUEL.

That is NOT the fault of the crew.

Last edited by ACMS; 16th Jun 2015 at 03:36.
ACMS is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 03:32
  #418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oz
Posts: 477
"The average cockpit crewmember in a Chinese cockpit would cost the airline about 20% of the cost of a pacific baron."


Oh please... what a load of Show me your evidence.


"2000 or so total mainline crew"


For the interest of accuracy, that is the total number of flight crew in QF 'mainline'. About 12 330's, 12 400's and 12 380's make the number of 'International' aircraft and the crew that compete on international wages total approximately half to less than half of 2000.


"They all seem to want to golden days of the 1980s to live on , 500 hours a year or something."


FBN, I guess your 'or something' is your disclaimer that you know zero about how many hours QF pilots fly. I have never flown less than 600 in QF and the 'lowest' year was because I was forced to take 3 months of LSL. Yes that's right, in any other job in Australia, you can't be forced to take LSL. For the record, I'm well on the way to flying my 900 this year on the LH award.


To the 'others' here on the forum, I totally agree that crew costs are something that we are not exempt from. I believe that the latest agreement is a good win for both sides and sits in the market sweet spot of not being the highest and certainly not the lowest. The company will certainly be able compete with all and sundry.
angryrat is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 03:36
  #419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 52
Posts: 447
"Interesting that Chinese cockpit crew are so cheap when Qantas is losing pilots to Chinese carriers because they earn more on contracts than at Qantas"

1. The foreign crew and their high salaries represent about 1% of the total pilot body for any Chinese carrier. Its safe to say their cockpit crew costs are “under control” when compared to western competitors.

2. An Air China 330 PIC back several years was earning a little more than a QF 330 FO. Exchange rate changes make a big difference.

3. There is a big difference to what a pilot earns and what they cost the company.

4. Care to provide the number of wide body PIC’s at QF that have resigned from QF to work for a Chinese carrier?
oicur12.again is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2015, 03:41
  #420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,768
Actually according to the QF 2014 annual report staff costs represented 19.4% of total.

CX was 18% as I said above. F all difference.

( These are total staff costs % and the Pilots are a small part of that. )

A BIG part of the 1.4% difference would be the extortionate salaries the QF mangers, CEO CFO get. Way more than CX.

Base salary of QF CEO $2.1 mill AUD
Base salary of CX CEO $1.1 mill AUD

Joyce has amazingly continued to receive that huge payout ( plus bonus ) even though QF have been hemorrhaging money at a great rate.

Last edited by ACMS; 16th Jun 2015 at 04:00.
ACMS 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.