Qantas Fleet Order Speculation
Why do we even need S/O's in Australia? It seems to be a uniquely Australian thing (like most) that is useless around the rest of the world.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuner 2.
You say that QF international is barely making any money with fuel at these prices......
That is totally incorrect. Fuel has dropped by more than 50%.
Qantas have unwound the hedging program so will not see the 90% plus benefit of this UNTIL the Second Half of the financial year.
Read any statements from Qantas media or the market, and that is confirmed to be a minimum of $400 million dollar upside for Qantas.
Internationals fuel cost was at least $2.6 billion a year or so ago. If fuel has dropped by at least 50% and we participate in 90-100% of the fall it's a big upside.
Here is the info copied below from a Citigroup report based on factual market statements from Alan Joyce and Gareth Evans
"The fall in the fuel price will kick in to a much greater extent in this period. The total decline in the cost of fuel in the first half was $91 million of which $33 million was the fall in price and the remainder was efficiency gains (ie using less fuel). In the second half the fuel tailwind is potentially cyclonic and should - based on what Alan Joyce said on Thursday - provide a net gain of between $400 million and $500 million".
"The gain from the removal of the carbon tax which was $59 million in the first half should be repeated in the second half".
"The restructuring /cost cutting program that delivered the lions share of the earnings growth in the December half (of $374 million) will continue as a major contributor in the current six months and should kick in another $300 million".
"The $208 million reduction in depreciation (thanks to the $2.6 billion of fleet writedowns taken last year) should also feature in the latest half year result".
"The company often talks in terms of performance headwinds and tailwinds. In the current half the tailwinds have it".
"Add it all up and it's reasonable to predict that Qantas will make the magic billion, particularly if all its operations remain in profit as they did in the first half".
But Tuner I'm sure you know more than Gareth has told analysts???
Or do you think the CFO of an ASX 100 Company has lied to the market and breached ASIC laws?
You say that QF international is barely making any money with fuel at these prices......
That is totally incorrect. Fuel has dropped by more than 50%.
Qantas have unwound the hedging program so will not see the 90% plus benefit of this UNTIL the Second Half of the financial year.
Read any statements from Qantas media or the market, and that is confirmed to be a minimum of $400 million dollar upside for Qantas.
Internationals fuel cost was at least $2.6 billion a year or so ago. If fuel has dropped by at least 50% and we participate in 90-100% of the fall it's a big upside.
Here is the info copied below from a Citigroup report based on factual market statements from Alan Joyce and Gareth Evans
"The fall in the fuel price will kick in to a much greater extent in this period. The total decline in the cost of fuel in the first half was $91 million of which $33 million was the fall in price and the remainder was efficiency gains (ie using less fuel). In the second half the fuel tailwind is potentially cyclonic and should - based on what Alan Joyce said on Thursday - provide a net gain of between $400 million and $500 million".
"The gain from the removal of the carbon tax which was $59 million in the first half should be repeated in the second half".
"The restructuring /cost cutting program that delivered the lions share of the earnings growth in the December half (of $374 million) will continue as a major contributor in the current six months and should kick in another $300 million".
"The $208 million reduction in depreciation (thanks to the $2.6 billion of fleet writedowns taken last year) should also feature in the latest half year result".
"The company often talks in terms of performance headwinds and tailwinds. In the current half the tailwinds have it".
"Add it all up and it's reasonable to predict that Qantas will make the magic billion, particularly if all its operations remain in profit as they did in the first half".
But Tuner I'm sure you know more than Gareth has told analysts???
Or do you think the CFO of an ASX 100 Company has lied to the market and breached ASIC laws?
Why do we even need S/O's in Australia? It seems to be a uniquely Australian thing (like most) that is useless around the rest of the world.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fear campaign
No. Unlike a disturbing number of my colleagues, I DO believe the CFO and I'm glad you do too. So when he says pilots must achieve a certain business case for 787s I'm glad you believe him too.
International's problem is that with an asset base of $5b or so, it doesn't return its cost of capital with a 200-250m profit. That's the problem.
No. Unlike a disturbing number of my colleagues, I DO believe the CFO and I'm glad you do too. So when he says pilots must achieve a certain business case for 787s I'm glad you believe him too.
International's problem is that with an asset base of $5b or so, it doesn't return its cost of capital with a 200-250m profit. That's the problem.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about we see what the profit is in this full years result WITH the fuel benefits?
The first half results DON'T show that benefit as mentioned in the report quoting the Qantas CFO.
Gareth has suggested it will be close to a billion dollars.
What's the rush. Enjoy the tailwinds.
The first half results DON'T show that benefit as mentioned in the report quoting the Qantas CFO.
Gareth has suggested it will be close to a billion dollars.
What's the rush. Enjoy the tailwinds.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: A dozen towns ago
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift for Morno
No Morno, not unique to Oz.
QF most certainly, as does CX and I'm sure there are other airlines that do, with others having "Cruise F/O's", VA being a case in point.
In any case, depending on the FTI, a LH or ULH flight that requires an augmented crew, will usually have 3, sometimes/often 4 crew members.
Airlines that don't have "Second Officers", are still required to field an augmented crew. Often is the case where they will have one Capt. and 2 F/O's, 2 Capt. & one F/O or 2 Capt's and 2 F/O's e.g. EK.
In QF's case a four person crew will consist of one Capt, one F/O and 2 S/O's.
If you were the Pay Master, who would you rather pay for one flight,
Two Capt's and two F/O's or, (in QF's case),
One Capt one F/O and Two S/O's?
QF most certainly, as does CX and I'm sure there are other airlines that do, with others having "Cruise F/O's", VA being a case in point.
In any case, depending on the FTI, a LH or ULH flight that requires an augmented crew, will usually have 3, sometimes/often 4 crew members.
Airlines that don't have "Second Officers", are still required to field an augmented crew. Often is the case where they will have one Capt. and 2 F/O's, 2 Capt. & one F/O or 2 Capt's and 2 F/O's e.g. EK.
In QF's case a four person crew will consist of one Capt, one F/O and 2 S/O's.
If you were the Pay Master, who would you rather pay for one flight,
Two Capt's and two F/O's or, (in QF's case),
One Capt one F/O and Two S/O's?
Last edited by caneworm; 3rd Jun 2015 at 05:23. Reason: Going Boeing beat me to it. Damn one finger typing...
SO
If you were the Pay Master, who would you rather pay for one flight,
Two Capt's and two F/O's or, (in QF's case),
One Capt one F/O and Two S/O's?[/QUOTE]
Your argument is invalid when a Qantas SO costs more than other airlines FO's.... and dare I say, perhaps even more than some airlines Capt's.
Two Capt's and two F/O's or, (in QF's case),
One Capt one F/O and Two S/O's?[/QUOTE]
Your argument is invalid when a Qantas SO costs more than other airlines FO's.... and dare I say, perhaps even more than some airlines Capt's.
Morno,
People asked the same thing about Navigators.
People asked the same thing about Navigators.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: A dozen towns ago
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Redkite,
I didn't intend to drop a bait, but somehow you found one & took it, lock stock & barrel (sic), well done you.
The subject of QF S/O's pay was not the gist Morno's comments.
My post was in response to Morno's query on why we have them, i.e. the underlying philosophy behind utilising them.
Yes, our award is currently the subject of some scrutiny and change will come, but I do wonder if you would have made those comments if you were a current QF S/O.
I didn't intend to drop a bait, but somehow you found one & took it, lock stock & barrel (sic), well done you.
The subject of QF S/O's pay was not the gist Morno's comments.
My post was in response to Morno's query on why we have them, i.e. the underlying philosophy behind utilising them.
Yes, our award is currently the subject of some scrutiny and change will come, but I do wonder if you would have made those comments if you were a current QF S/O.
Last edited by caneworm; 3rd Jun 2015 at 06:14. Reason: Same thing said differently
I wonder if Pilots are the only group that will argue that others of the same profession get paid too much. No wonder T and Cs are going down the toilet.
Donpizmeov - you can't say Qantas pilots T's and C's are going down the toilet, they are far from it. It's the fact the airline and the pilots have no future that is the real problem here.
And Caney, I'm glad you think the LH award needs a 'shakeup' - so do I. And I'm only stating facts, but I guess it's stating the unmentionable, the old 'elephant in the room'. To be clear, I don't think it's only SO T's and C's that should become more competitive, but FO's and Capt's as well. ....and yes, I would say that if 'I was one of them' ....because I want a future.
And Caney, I'm glad you think the LH award needs a 'shakeup' - so do I. And I'm only stating facts, but I guess it's stating the unmentionable, the old 'elephant in the room'. To be clear, I don't think it's only SO T's and C's that should become more competitive, but FO's and Capt's as well. ....and yes, I would say that if 'I was one of them' ....because I want a future.
Your argument is invalid when a Qantas SO costs more than other airlines FO's.... and dare I say, perhaps even more than some airlines Capt's.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: A dozen towns ago
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redkite,
I did not say that the LH award needs a 'shakeup'.
Read my post again, I said it was, "the subject of some scrutiny and change will come". I'm ready for it, it's a given and it behoves all of us to make plans accordingly.
It's clear that you, on the other hand, will not be burdened by such decision making.
I did not say that the LH award needs a 'shakeup'.
Read my post again, I said it was, "the subject of some scrutiny and change will come". I'm ready for it, it's a given and it behoves all of us to make plans accordingly.
It's clear that you, on the other hand, will not be burdened by such decision making.
This negotiating process illustrates what can be achieved when mutual respect and openness is central to realising an outcome "in good faith". The likes of Oldpaddock and their obstructionists militant antics can hopefully be consigned to history. I tips me hat to both the company pilots and AIPA. Thank you for restoring some faith and respect in the pilot community.
B787 purchase may be delayed to pay off debt in order to get back a non-junk credit rating...
"Qantas Airways is on the verge of winning back the investment-grade credit status it lost in 2013. Getting there may require putting off plans to buy Dreamliner aircraft."
Qantas Dreamliner purchase puts exit from 'junk' at risk, says NAB
And yes, well done to the negotiators, lots of hard work looks to have paid off.
"Qantas Airways is on the verge of winning back the investment-grade credit status it lost in 2013. Getting there may require putting off plans to buy Dreamliner aircraft."
Qantas Dreamliner purchase puts exit from 'junk' at risk, says NAB
And yes, well done to the negotiators, lots of hard work looks to have paid off.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My personal opinion is that we will see an order for 8-12 787's . Anything more would spook the market . Then more and more coming online over time . I wouldn't be surprised to see the A350 getting a guernsey from around 2021 either . Just my gut feeling . The deal that has been done is an outstanding outcome for both sides and the negotiators should be commended .
Protections? They happily took a $90 million dollar hit to take you to FWA to try and smash you, you don't think they'll take an 18 month hit at supposed inflated wages to get you sucked in on the 787, I mean new type.
Unfortunately, you are displaying naivety. QF's own figures are that they took a hit of $190M for the shutdown with a further $60M in legal costs and when the Fair Work Determination came out, the award was almost totally intact - management had minimal wins and have subsequently changed their industrial negotiation strategy.
My statement to the effect that it is very unlikely for any current S/O's to be forced onto the B787 comes from my knowledge of the management plans wrt the introduction of that aircraft.
My statement to the effect that it is very unlikely for any current S/O's to be forced onto the B787 comes from my knowledge of the management plans wrt the introduction of that aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that I'm starting to understand this EBA some things are becoming obvious.
The majority of four engine captains will vote no - mostly because of the remote possibility of a psn getting up in their category. The majority of others will vote yes - especially once they understand it properly. Am also hearing that one of the louder and more frequent contributor to qrewroom captains on com intends to engineer a no vote to use as leverage for the AIPA presidency. Scary thought.
The majority of four engine captains will vote no - mostly because of the remote possibility of a psn getting up in their category. The majority of others will vote yes - especially once they understand it properly. Am also hearing that one of the louder and more frequent contributor to qrewroom captains on com intends to engineer a no vote to use as leverage for the AIPA presidency. Scary thought.